Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perceptual evaluation of substitution voices: development and evaluation of the (I)INFVo rating scale

  • Phoniatrics
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and Head & Neck Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Substitution voicing cannot be evaluated accurately by the GRBAS perceptual rating scale, and there is a need for a valuable alternative. Therefore, we developed and tried out a perceptual rating scale, consisting of five new parameters: impression, intelligibility, noise, fluency and voicing, each to be scored between 0 (very bad score) to 10 (very good score for a substitution voice). In analogy to the GRBAS scale, they are then converted to deviance scores ranging from 0 (similar to good substitution voicing) to 3 (very deviant from good substitution voicing). Inter-individual agreement measured in a set of 24 semi-professional jury members seemed to be moderate for all parameters. Mean figures of 0.52, 0.51, 0.46, 0.53 and 0.46 are obtained for the parameters impression, intelligibility, noise, fluency and voicing, respectively. Because a high correlation exists between the first two parameters (0.917) and relying on the correlation figures between the two “I”s and the other parameters (correlation values for “impression” vary from 0.79–0.86; values for “intelligibility” range from 0.74–0.83), we suggest to discard the parameter impression, which turns the actual IINFVo scale into INFVo. The proposed (I)INFVo perceptual rating scale seems promising for the assessment of substitution voicing. Eventual improvements and practical proposals are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, Cornut G, Crevier-Buchman L, Friedrich G, Van De Heyning P, Remacle M, Woisard V (2001) A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessments techniques. Guideline elaborated by the Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 258:77–82

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dejonckere PH, Remacle M, Fresnel-Elbaz E, Woisard V, Crevier Buchman L, Millet B (1996) Differential perceptual evaluation of pathological voice quality: reliability and correlations with acoustic measurements. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol 117:219–224

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Moerman M, Pieters G, Martens JP, Van der Borgt MJ, Dejonckere P (2004) Objective evaluation of quality of substitution voices. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Jan 15 (Epub ahead of print)

  4. Singer MI (1983) Tracheoesophageal speech: vocal rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 93:1454–1465

    Google Scholar 

  5. Robbins J, Fisher HB, Blom E, Singer MI (1984) A comparative acoustic study of normal, esophageal and tracheo-esophageal speech production. J Speech Hear Disord 49:202–210

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Debruyne F, Delaere P, Wouters J, Uwents P (1994) Acoustic analysis of tracheo-esophageal versus esophageal speech. J Laryngol Otol 108:325–328

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pindzola RH, Cain BH, Auburn AL (1988) Acceptability ratings of tracheo-esophageal speech. Laryngoscope 98:394–397

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Clark J (1985) Alaryngeal speech intelligibility and the older listener. J Speech Hear Disord 50:60–65

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McColl D, Fucci D, Petrosino L, Martin DE, McCaffrey P (1998) Listener ratings of the intelligibility of tracheo-esophageal speech in noise. J.Commun Disord 31:279–288

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Eksteen EC, Nesbitt M, Seikaly H (2003) Comparison of voice characteristics following three different methods of treatment for laryngeal cancer. J Otolaryngol 32:250–253

    Google Scholar 

  11. Finizia C, Dotevall H, Lundstrom E, Lindstrom J (1999) Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of voice and speech quality: a study of patients with laryngeal cancer treated with laryngectomy vs irradiation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125:157–163

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Finizia C, Lindstrom J, Dotevall H (1998) Intelligibility and perceptual ratings after treatment for laryngeal cancer: laryngectomy versus radiotherapy. Laryngoscope 108:138–143

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Van As CJ, Koopmans-van Beinum FJ, Hilgers FJ (2003) Perceptual evaluation of tracheo-esophageal speech by naïve and experienced judges through the use of semantic differential scales. J Speech Lang Hear Res 46:947–959

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Van As CJ (2001) Tracheo-esophageal speech: a multidimensional assessment of voice quality. Doctoral thesis. Budde-Elinkwijk, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands

  15. Vlaminck H, Maes B, Jacobs A, Reyntjens S, Evers G (2001) The dialysis diet and fluid non-adherence questionnaire: validity testing of a self-report instrument for clinical practice. Information point: Kendall’s tau. J Clin Nurs 10:707–715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to express our gratitude to the speech therapy students at the Arteveldehogeschool Ghent: K. Van Edom, I. Van Den Berge, L. Van Den Dorpe, S. Van Snick, G. Van De Poel, E. Vermeire, K. Waterschoot and their colleagues, for assisting in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Phoniatrics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    M. B. J. Moerman & P. H. Dejonckere

  2. Electronics and Information Systems Department, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    J. P. Martens

  3. Arteveldehogeschool Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

    M. J. Van der Borgt, M. Peleman & M. Gillis

  4. , Min.Liebaertlaan 63, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium

    M. B. J. Moerman

Authors
  1. M. B. J. Moerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. P. Martens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. J. Van der Borgt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Peleman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Gillis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. H. Dejonckere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. B. J. Moerman.

Additional information

This study was presented at the 5th ELS meeting, 10–14 July 2004, Lisbon, Portugal (round table ERLG session).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moerman, M.B.J., Martens, J.P., Van der Borgt, M.J. et al. Perceptual evaluation of substitution voices: development and evaluation of the (I)INFVo rating scale. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 263, 183–187 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-005-0960-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-005-0960-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation