The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) on the vocal quality using the dysphonia severity index (DSI). It was hypothesized that the objective vocal quality and other vocal characteristics are disordered in comparison with an age- and gender-matched control group. In addition, the acoustic vocal parameters were compared during three conditions: at rest, during normal stimulation, and raised stimulation. A significant relation between the amount of stimulation and the presence of disturbed acoustic parameters was hypothesized.Subjective (auditory-perceptual evaluation and voice handicap index) and objective (aerodynamic, vocal range, acoustic measurements and determination of the DSI) measurements were used to determine the vocal quality in 13 subjects with VNS in three different conditions (at rest and during normal and raised stimulation) and the age- and gender-matched control group.The subjects with VNS had a disordered perceptual vocal quality mainly characterized by the presence of a moderate roughness and slight breathiness, and the objective vocal quality by means of the DSI value is -2.4. During stimulation and especially during raised stimulation, the fundamental frequency is significantly increased. However, the subjects experienced no psychosocial handicapping effect of the vocal quality on the quality of life.Subjects with VNS have typical vocal characteristics. Ear, nose, and throat specialists and voice therapist must be aware of the presence of this vocal pattern at rest and during normal and raised stimulation. Especially, professional voice users and elite vocal performers must be informed before implantation.
The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the effect of visual feedback on rating voice quality severity level and the reliability of voice quality judgment by inexperienced listeners. For this purpose two training programs were created, each lasting 2 hours. In total 37 undergraduate speech–language therapy students participated in the study and were divided into a visual plus auditory-perceptual feedback group (V + AF), an auditory-perceptual feedback group (AF), and a control group with no feedback (NF). All listeners completed two rating sessions judging overall severity labeled as grade (G), roughness (R), and breathiness (B). The judged voice samples contained the concatenation of continuous speech and sustained phonation. No significant rater reliability changes were found in the pre- and posttest between the three groups in every GRB-parameter (all p > 0.05). There was a training effect seen in the significant improvement of rater reliability for roughness within the NF and AF groups (all p < 0.05), and for breathiness within the V + AF group (p < 0.01). The rating of the severity level of roughness changed significantly after the training in the AF and V + AF groups (p < 0.01), and the breathiness severity level changed significantly after the training in the V + AF group (p < 0.01). The training of V + AF and AF may only minimally influence the reliability in the judgment of voice quality but showed significant influence on rating the severity level of GRB parameters. Therefore, the use of both visual and auditory anchors while rating as well as longer training sessions may be required to draw a firm conclusion.
LINK
Purpose Over the last 5 decades, many acoustic measures have been created to measure roughness and breathiness. The aim of this study is to present a meta-analysis of correlation coefficients (r) between auditory-perceptual judgment of roughness and breathiness and various acoustic measures in both sustained vowels and continuous speech. Method Scientific literature reporting perceptual–acoustic correlations on roughness and breathiness were sought in 28 databases. Weighted average correlation coefficients (r w) were calculated when multiple r-values were available for a specific acoustic marker. An r w ≥ .60 was the threshold for an acoustic measure to be considered acceptable. Results From 103 studies of roughness and 107 studies of breathiness that were investigated, only 33 studies and 34 studies, respectively, met the inclusion criteria of the meta-analysis on sustained vowels. Eighty-six acoustic measures were identified for roughness and 85 acoustic measures for breathiness on sustained vowels, in which 43 and 39 measures, respectively, yielded multiple r-values. Finally, only 14 measures for roughness and 12 measures for breathiness produced r w ≥ .60. On continuous speech, 4 measures for roughness and 21 measures for breathiness were identified, yielding 3 and 6 measures, respectively, with multiple r-values in which only 1 and 2, respectively, had r w ≥ .60. Conclusion This meta-analysis showed that only a few acoustic parameters were determined as the best estimators for roughness and breathiness.
