A comparison of Dysphonia Severity Index and Acoustic Voice Quality Index measures in differentiating normal and dysphonic voices
- 232 Downloads
The aim of the study was to investigate and compare the feasibility and robustness of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) and the Dysphonia Severity Index (DSI) in diagnostic accuracy, differentiating normal and dysphonic voices.
A group of 264 subjects with normal voices (n = 105) and with various voice disorders (n = 159) were asked to read aloud a text and to sustain the vowel /a/. Both speech tasks were concatenated, and perceptually rated for dysphonia severity by five voice clinicians. They rated the Grade (G) and the overall dysphonia severity with a visual analog scale (VAS). All concatenated voice samples were acoustically analyzed to receive an AVQI score. For DSI analysis, the required voice parameters were obtained from the sustained phonation of the vowel /a/.
The results achieved significant and marked concurrent validity between both auditory-perceptual judgment procedures and both acoustic voice measures. The DSI threshold (i.e., DSI = 3.30) pertaining to Gmean obtained reasonable sensitivity of 85.8% and specificity of 83.4%. For VASmean, the DSI threshold of 3.30 was determined also with reasonable sensitivity of 70.3% and excellent specificity of 93.9%. Also, the AVQI threshold (i.e., AVQI = 3.31) pertaining to Gmean demonstrated reasonable sensitivity of 78.1% and excellent specificity of 92.0%. For VASmean, an AVQI threshold of 3.33 was determined with excellent sensitivity of 97.0% and reasonable specificity of 81.8%.
The outcomes of the present study indicate comparable results between DSI and AVQI with a high level of validity to discriminate between normal and dysphonic voices. However, a higher level of accuracy was yielded for AVQI as a correlate of auditory perceptual judgment suggesting a reliable voice screening potential of AVQI.
KeywordsDysphonia Acoustic Voice Quality Index Dysphonia Severity Index Acoustic voice analysis Voice assessment
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Lithuanian State Data Protection Inspectorate for Working with Personal Patient Data [No. 2R-648 (2.6-1)].
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 6.Hussein Gaber AG, Liang FY, Yang JS et al (2014) Correlation among the dysphonia severity index (DSI), the RBH voice perceptual evaluation, and minimum glottal area in female patients with vocal fold nodules. J Voice 28:20–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.08.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Nemr K, Simões-Zenari M, de Souza GS et al (2015) Correlation of the Dysphonia Severity Index (DSI), Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V), and gender in Brazilians with and without voice disorders. J Voice 30:765e7–765e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.10.013 Google Scholar
- 15.Barsties B, Maryn Y The improvement of internal consistency of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index. Am J Otolaryngol 36:647–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2015.04.012
- 19.Kankare E, Barsties B, Maryn Y, Ilomäki I, Laukkanen AM, Tyrmi J, Rantala L, Asikainen M, Rorarius E, Siirilä MVS (2015) A preliminary study of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index in Finnish speaking population. A Prelim. study Acoust. Voice Qual. Index Finnish Speak. Popul. 11th Pan European Voice Conference; 2015 August 31th–September 4th. Florence, p 218Google Scholar
- 24.Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P et al (2001) A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Guideline elaborated by the Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngolo. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 258:77–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Portney LG, Watkins M (2000) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice (vol 2)Google Scholar
- 32.Frey LR, Botan CH, Friedman PG, Kreps GL (1991) Investigating communication: an introduction to research methods, 1st edn. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- 34.Dollaghan CA (2007) The handbook for evidence-based practice in communication disorders. MD Brooks, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- 35.Ulozaite N, Petrauskas T, Saferis V, Uloza V (2016) Correlations between automated dysphonia quantification and perceptual voice evaluation. In: Biomed. Eng.—2016 Proc. 20th Int. Conf. Kaunas University of Technology. Lithuanian Society of Biomedical Engineering, Kaunas, pp 147–152Google Scholar