Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Laryngology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Askenfelt AG, Hammarberg B (1986) Speech waveform perturbation analysis: a perceptual-acoustical comparison of seven measures. J Speech Hear Res 29:50–64

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Parsa V, Jamieson DG (2001) Acoustic discrimination of pathological voice: sustained vowels versus continuous speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res 44:327–339

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 19:574–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 24:540–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 43:161–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 14:295–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 351–360

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schulman R (1989) Articulatory dynamics of loud and normal speech. J Acoust Soc Am 85:295–312

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Higgins MB, Netsell R, Schulte L (1998) Vowel-related differences in laryngeal articulatory and phonatory function. J Speech Lang Hear Res 41:712–724

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 41:1003–1018

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cookman S, Verdolini K (1999) Interrelation of mandibular laryngeal functions. J Voice 13:11–24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McClean MD, Tasko SM (2002) Association of orofacial with laryngeal and respiratory motor output during speech. Exp Brain Res 146:481–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.e7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 60:715–720

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 81–84

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chan KM, Yiu EM (2002) The effect of anchors and training on the reliability of perceptual voice evaluation. J Speech Lang Hear Res 45:111–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Portney LG, Watkins MP (2000) Foundations of clinical research, applications to practice, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sheskin DJ (1997) Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dollaghan CA (2007) The handbook for evidence-based practice in communication disorders. MD Brookes, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  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 23:825–841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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–e232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Khan SD (2010) Effects of native language on perception of voice quality. J Phon 38:588–593

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 55:177–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 525–528

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Declarations

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Sint-Jan General Hospital, Ruddershove 10, 8000, Brugge, Belgium

    Youri Maryn

  2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Sint-Jan General Hospital, Brugge, Belgium

    Youri Maryn

  3. Department of Speech Therapy and Audiology, Faculty of Health Care, University College Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

    Youri Maryn

  4. Department of Communication Disorders, University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium

    Marc De Bodt

  5. Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium

    Marc De Bodt

  6. Faculty of Health Care, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Ben Barsties

  7. Division of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA

    Nelson Roy

Authors
  1. Youri Maryn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marc De Bodt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ben Barsties
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nelson Roy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Youri Maryn.

Appendix: Number of syllables and phonetic transcriptions of the six sentences that were analyzed in this study

Appendix: Number of syllables and phonetic transcriptions of the six sentences that were analyzed in this study

Dutch sample number 1—Du1—17 syllables

“Papa en Marloes staan op het station. Ze wachten op de trein.”

Dutch sample number 2—Du2—22 syllables

“De noorderwind en de zon waren erover aan het redetwisten wie de sterkste was van hun beiden.”

English sample number 3—En3—18 syllables

“The north wind and the sun were arguing 1 day which of them was stronger.”

English sample number 4—En4—19 syllables

“When light strikes raindrops in the air, they act like a prism and form a rainbow.”

German sample number 5—Ge5—22 syllables

“Einst stritten sich Nordwind und Sonne, wer von Ihnen beiden woll der stärkere wäre.”

French sample number 6—Fr6—21 syllables

“La bise et le soleil se disputaient, chacun assurant qu’il était le plus fort.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maryn, Y., De Bodt, M., Barsties, B. et al. The value of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index as a measure of dysphonia severity in subjects speaking different languages. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271, 1609–1619 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2730-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2730-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation