Acoustic Voice Quality Index - AVQI for brazilian portuguese speakers: analysis of different speech material
Acoustic Voice Quality Index - AVQI para o português brasileiro: análise de diferentes materiais de fala
Marina Englert, Livia Lima, Ana Carolina Constantini, Ben Barsties v. Latoszek, Youri Maryn, Mara Behlau
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to verify the best speech material for the AVQI for Brazilian Portuguese language and identify the best validity results between the auditory perceptual judgment (APJ) and the AVQI score on different speech materials. Methods: We recorded voice samples of 50 individuals (dysphonic and vocally healthy) of several continuous speech (cs) variants (i.e., months of the year, numbers 1 to 20, and CAPE-V sentences) and attached the vowel /a/ in each case. The recorded samples were edited to three different durations of cs variants plus vowel: D1-total speech material; D2-customized speech material without voiceless parts; D3-pre-defined cut-off point speech material. These samples were submitted to three voice experts who judged the overall voice quality; and the AVQI analysis. AVQI’s precision and concurrent validity were evaluated considering a Gmean threshold of G<0.5 and G<0.68. Results: The concurrent validity of AVQI and APJ ranged from r = 0.482 to r = 0.634. Numbers presented higher values for all durations. For G<0.5, the best sensitivity and area under the ROC curve was for CAPE-V sentences at D3 (57.8%; 72%). For G<0.68, numbers 1 to 10 had the best diagnostic accuracy and numbers 1 to 20 had the best sensitivity. Conclusion: Numbers from 1 to 10 had the best correlation results between APJ and AVQI. For G<0.5, sentences had the best diagnostic accuracy; while for G<0.68, numbers had the best diagnostic accuracy. Numbers are commonly used in the Brazilian clinic routine. According to the validity results and daily clinical practice in Brazil, we suggest the use of numbers as cs for concatenated voice samples of voice quality assessments.
Keywords
Resumo
Objetivo: Verificar a melhor amostra de fala para validação do AVQI para o português-brasileiro; identificar o contexto de fala com melhor correlação perceptivo-acústica e que possui maior acurácia diagnóstica com o AVQI. Método: Gravações de 50 sujeitos (disfônicos e vocalmente saudáveis), incluindo: vogal/a/; meses do ano; números (1 a 20) e repetição das frases do CAPE-V. As amostras de fala foram editadas para conter três diferentes durações mais vogal: D1-fala completa; D2-fala com 3s de segmentos sonoros; D3-fala com ponto de corte pré-determinado. Três avaliadores realizaram a análise perceptivoauditiva (APA) das amostras combinadas em 3 contextos seguidos da vogal e deram um único escore do desvio vocal (G:0 a 3). Verificou‑se qual estímulo de fala possuía melhor correlação perceptivo-acústica considerando o Gmédio; analisou-se qual estímulo possuía melhor acurácia diagnóstica considerando como presença ou ausência G<0,5 e G<0,68. Resultados: A correlação perceptivo-acústica variou de r = 0,482 a r = 0,634 (Correlação de Spearman); números apresentou os valores mais elevados. O AVQI foi altamente específico e pouco sensível. Considerando G<0,5, a melhor sensibilidade e valor da curva ROC foi para frases em D3 (0,578;0,72). Considerando G<0,68, houve boa acurácia diagnóstica para números de 1 a 10 e maior sensibilidade para números de 1 a 20. Conclusão: Melhor correlação perceptivo‑acústica foi para números, 1 a 10. As frases do CAPE-V produziram melhor acurácia diagnóstica com G<0,5, números apresentou elevada acurácia diagnóstica com G<0,68. Números é bastante usual na clínica brasileira, logo, sugere-se seu uso para validação e análises do AVQI.
Palavras-chave
Referências
1 Dejonckere PH, Crevier-Buchman L, Marie JP, Moerman M, Remacle M, Woisard V. Implementation of the European Laryngological Society (ELS) basic protocol for assessing voice treatment effect. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol. 2003;124(5):279-83. PMid:15144022. [ Links ]
2 Linder R, Albers AE, Hess M, Pöppl SJ, Schönweiler R. Artificial neural network-based classification to screen for dysphonia using psychoacoustic scaling of acoustic voice features. J Voice. 2008;22(2):155-63.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.09.003 . PMid:17074463. [ Links ]
3 Roy N, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Eadie T, Sivasankar MP, Mehta D, Paul D, et al. Evidence-based clinical voice assessment: a systematic review. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2013;22(2):212-26.http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2012/12-0014) . PMid:23184134. [ Links ]
4 Barsties B, De Bodt M. Assessment of voice quality: current state-of-the-art. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2015;42(3):183-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anl.2014.11.001 . PMid:25440411. [ Links ]
5 Oates J. Auditory-perceptual evaluation of disordered vocal quality: pros, cons and future directions. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2009;61(1):49-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000200768 . PMid:19204393. [ Links ]
6 Sellars C, Stanton AE, McConnachie A, Dunnet CP, Chapman LM, Bucknall CE, et al. Reliability of perceptions of voice quality: evidence from a problem asthma clinic population. J Laryngol Otol. 2009;123(7):755-63.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022215109004605 . PMid:19250586. [ Links ]
7 Roy N, Mazin A, Awan SN. Automated acoustic analysis of task dependency in adductor spasmodic dysphonia versus muscle tension dysphonia. Laryngoscope. 2014;124(3):718-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lary.24362 . PMid:23946147. [ Links ]
8 Maryn Y, Corthals P, Van Cauwenberge P, Roy N, De Bodt M. Toward improved ecological validity in the acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: combining continuous speech and sustained vowels. J Voice. 2010;24(5):540-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.12.014 . PMid:19883993. [ Links ]
9 Awan SN, Roy N, Zhang D, Cohen SM. Validation of the Cepstral Spectral Index of Dysphonia (CSID) as a screening tool for voice disorders: development of clinical cutoff scores. J Voice. 2016;30(2):130-44.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.04.009 . PMid:26361215. [ Links ]
10 Carding PN, Wilson JA, MacKenzie K, Deary IJ. Measuring voice outcomes: state of the science review. J Laryngol Otol. 2009;123(8):823-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022215109005398 . PMid:19454129. [ Links ]
11 Barsties B, Maryn Y. External Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index version 03.01 with extended representativity. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2016;125(7):571-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0003489416636131 . PMid:26951063. [ Links ]
12 Reynolds V, Buckland A, Bailey J, Lipscombe J, Nathan E, Vijayasekaran S, et al. Objective assessment of pediatric voice disorders with the acoustic voice quality index. J Voice. 2012;26(5):672.e1-7.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2012.02.002 . PMid:22632794. [ Links ]
13 Maryn Y, De Bodt M, Barsties B, Roy N. The value of the acoustic voice quality index as a measure of dysphonia severity in subjects speaking diferente languages. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;271(6):1609-19. PMid:24162765. [ Links ]
14 Hosokawa K, Barsties V Latoszek B, Iwahashi T, Iwahashi M, Iwaki S, Kato C, et al. The Acoustic Voice Quality Index version 03.01 for the japanese-speaking population. J Voice. 2019;33(1):125.e1-12.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.10.003 . PMid:29153335. [ Links ]
15 Uloza V, Petrauskas T, Padervinskis E, Ulozaitė N, Barsties B, Maryn Y. Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index in the Lithuanian language. J Voice. 2016;14(16):30071-6. PMid:27427182. [ Links ]
16 Fairbanks G. Voice and articulation drillbook. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row; 1960. p. 124-9. [ Links ]
17 IBGE: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios 2015: PNAD. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística; 2017 [citado em 2017 Abr 14]. Disponível em: https://www.ibge.gov.br/ [ Links ]
18 Behlau M, Azevedo R, Pontes P. Conceito de voz normal e classificação das disfonias. In: Behlau M. Voz: o livro do especialista. 1. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Revinter; 2001. Capítulo 2; p. 53-79. [ Links ]
19 Behlau M. Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V), ASHA 2003 [Refletindo sobre o novo]. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2004;9:187-9. [ Links ]
20 Behlau M. Uma análise das vogais do português brasileiro falado em São Paulo: perceptual, espectrográfica de formantes e computadorizada de frequência fundamental [dissertação]. São Paulo: Universidade Federal de São Paulo; 1984. [ Links ]
21 Hirano M. Clinical examination of voice. New York: Springer Verlag; 1981. [ Links ]
22 Awan SN, Lawson LL. The effect of anchor modality on the reliability of vocal severity ratings. J Voice. 2009;23(3):341-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2007.10.006 . PMid:18346869. [ Links ]
23 Santos AC, Borrego MC, Behlau M. Effect of direct and indirect voice training in speech-language pathology and audiology students. CoDAS. 2015;27(4):384-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20152014232 . PMid:26398263. [ Links ]
24 Fadel CB, Dassie-Leite AP, Santos RS, Santos CG Jr, Dias CA, Sartori DJ. Efeitos imediatos do exercício de trato vocal semiocluído com Tubo LaxVox®m cantores. CoDAS. 2016;28(5):618-24.http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20162015168 . PMid:27849247. [ Links ]
25 Diaféria G, Madazio G, Pacheco C, Takaki PB, Behlau M. Clima de grupo na terapia vocal de pacientes com Doença de Parkinson. CoDAS. 2017;29(4):e20170051. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20172017051 . PMid:28876371. [ Links ]
26 Moreira FS, Gama AC. Efeito do tempo de execução do exercício vocal sopro e som agudo na voz de mulheres. CoDAS. 2017;29(1):e20160005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20172016005 . PMid:28225849. [ Links ]
27 Barsties B, Maryn Y. The Improvement of internal consistency of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index. Am J Otolaryngol. 2015;36(5):647-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2015.04.012 . PMid:25964174. [ Links ]
28 Maryn Y, DeBodt M, Roy N. The Acoustic Voice Quality Index: toward improved treatment outcomes assessment in voice disorders. J Commun Disord. 2010;43(3):161-74.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2009.12.004 . PMid:20080243. [ Links ]
29 Barsties B, Maryn Y. The Acoustic Voice Quality Index: toward expanded measurment of dysphonia severity in German subjects. HNO. 2012;60(8):715-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00106-012-2499-9 . PMid:22527525. [ Links ]
Submetido em:
12/04/2018
Aceito em:
15/08/2018
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email