European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 271, Issue 6, pp 1609–1619 | Cite as

The value of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index as a measure of dysphonia severity in subjects speaking different languages

  • Youri Maryn
  • Marc De Bodt
  • Ben Barsties
  • Nelson Roy


The Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) is a relatively new clinical method to quantify dysphonia severity. Since it partially relies on continuous speech, its performance may vary with voice-related phonetic differences and thus across languages. The present investigation therefore assessed the AVQI’s performance in English, Dutch, German, and French. Fifty subjects were recorded reading sentences in the four languages, as well as producing a sustained vowel. These recordings were later edited to calculate the AVQI. The samples were also perceptually rated on overall dysphonia severity by three experienced voice clinicians. The AVQI’s cross-linguistic concurrent validity and diagnostic precision were assessed. The results support earlier data, and confirm good cross-linguistic validity and diagnostic accuracy. Although no statistical differences were observed between languages, the AVQI performed better in English and German and less well in French. These results validate the AVQI as a potentially robust and objective dysphonia severity measure across languages.


Dysphonia Clinical assessment Acoustic Voice Quality Index Different languages 



The authors thank Dr. Gwen Van Nuffelen (Department of Communication Disorders, University Hospital of Antwerp, Belgium) for her contributions in the perceptual rating of the many concatenated voice samples.


The study followed the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The authors report no declarations of interest.


  1. 1.
    Askenfelt AG, Hammarberg B (1986) Speech waveform perturbation analysis: a perceptual-acoustical comparison of seven measures. J Speech Hear Res 29:50–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parsa V, Jamieson DG (2001) Acoustic discrimination of pathological voice: sustained vowels versus continuous speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res 44:327–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zraick RI, Wendel K, Smith-Olinde L (2005) The effect of speaking task on perceptual judgment of the severity of dysphonic voice. J Voice 19:574–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maryn Y, Corthals P, Van Cauwenberge P, Roy N, De Bodt M (2010) Toward improved ecological validity in the acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: combining continuous speech and sustained vowels. J Voice 24:540–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maryn Y, De Bodt M, Roy N (2010) The Acoustic Voice Quality Index: toward improved treatment outcomes assessment in voice disorders. J Commun Disord 43:161–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yiu E, Worrall L, Longland J, Mitchell C (2000) Analysing vocal quality of connected speech using Kay’s computerized speech lab: a preliminary finding. Clin Linguist Phon 14:295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ladefoged P (1983) The linguistic use of different phonation types. In: Bless D, Abbs J (eds) Vocal fold physiology: contemporary research and clinical issues. College-Hill Press, San Diego, pp 351–360Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schulman R (1989) Articulatory dynamics of loud and normal speech. J Acoust Soc Am 85:295–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Higgins MB, Netsell R, Schulte L (1998) Vowel-related differences in laryngeal articulatory and phonatory function. J Speech Lang Hear Res 41:712–724PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dromey C, Ramig LO (1998) Intentional changes in sound pressure level and rate: their impact on measures of respiration, phonation, and articulation. J Speech Lang Hear Res 41:1003–1018PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cookman S, Verdolini K (1999) Interrelation of mandibular laryngeal functions. J Voice 13:11–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McClean MD, Tasko SM (2002) Association of orofacial with laryngeal and respiratory motor output during speech. Exp Brain Res 146:481–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reynolds V, Buckland A, Bailey J, Lipscombe J, Nathan E, Vijayasekaran S, Kelly R, Maryn Y, French N (2012) Objective assessment of pediatric voice disorders with the Acoustic Voice Quality Index. J Voice 26:672.e1–672.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barsties B, Maryn Y (2012) Der Acoustic Voice Quality Index in Deutsch: ein Messverfahren zur allgemeinen Stimmqualität [The Acoustic Voice Quality Index: toward expanded measurement of dysphonia severity in German subjects]. HNO 60:715–720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hirano M (1981) Psycho-acoustic evaluation of voice. In: Arnold GE, Winckel F, Wyke BD (eds) Disorders of human communication 5, clinical examination of voice. Springer, Vienna, pp 81–84Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chan KM, Yiu EM (2002) The effect of anchors and training on the reliability of perceptual voice evaluation. J Speech Lang Hear Res 45:111–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Portney LG, Watkins MP (2000) Foundations of clinical research, applications to practice, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sheskin DJ (1997) Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. CRC Press LLC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dollaghan CA (2007) The handbook for evidence-based practice in communication disorders. MD Brookes, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Awan SN, Roy N, Dromey C (2009) Estimating dysphonia severity in continuous speech: application of a multi-parameter spectral/cepstral model. Clin Linguist Phon 23:825–841PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lowell SY, Colton RH, Kelley RT, Hahn YC (2011) Spectral- and cepstral-based measures during continuous speech: capacity to distinguish dysphonia and consistency within a speaker. J Voice 25:e223–e232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Khan SD (2010) Effects of native language on perception of voice quality. J Phon 38:588–593PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hartelius L, Theodoros D, Cahill L, Lillvik M (2003) Comparability of perceptual analysis of speech characteristics in Australian and Swedish speakers with multiple sclerosis. Folia Phoniatr Logop 55:177–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ghio A, Weisz F, Baracca G, Cantarella G, Robert D, Woisard V, Fussi F, Giovanni A (2011) Is the perception of voice quality language-dependant? A comparison of French and Italian listeners and dysphonic speakers. In: Proceedings of interspeech 2011, pp 525–528Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Youri Maryn
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marc De Bodt
    • 4
    • 5
  • Ben Barsties
    • 6
  • Nelson Roy
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Speech-Language Pathology and AudiologySint-Jan General HospitalBruggeBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck SurgerySint-Jan General HospitalBruggeBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Speech Therapy and Audiology, Faculty of Health CareUniversity College GhentGhentBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Communication DisordersUniversity HospitalAntwerpBelgium
  5. 5.Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck SurgeryUniversity HospitalAntwerpBelgium
  6. 6.Faculty of Health CareUniversity of Applied Sciences UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Division of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Department of Communication Sciences and DisordersUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations