Test-Retest Reliability of Relative Fundamental Frequency and Conventional Acoustic, Aerodynamic, and Perceptual Measures in Individuals With Healthy Voices.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Test-Retest Reliability of Relative Fundamental Frequency and Conventional Acoustic, Aerodynamic, and Perceptual Measures in Individuals With Healthy Voices.
Authors:	Park, Yeonggwang¹ yppark@bu.edu, Stepp, Cara E.^1,2,3
Source:	Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research. Jun2019, Vol. 62 Issue 6, p1707-1718. 12p. 1 Color Photograph, 4 Charts, 3 Graphs.
Subject Terms:	Voice disorders, Statistical correlation, Self-evaluation, Speech perception, Data analysis, Inter-observer reliability, Voice frequency, Aerodynamic measurements, Acoustic measurements, Statistical reliability, Human voice, Aerodynamics, Confidence intervals, Questionnaires, Research evaluation, Research funding, Physiological aspects of speech, Statistics, Transducers, Data analysis software, Descriptive statistics, Intraclass correlation
Abstract:	Purpose: Recent studies have shown that an acoustic measure, relative fundamental frequency (RFF), has potential for the assessment of excessive laryngeal tension and vocal effort associated with functional and neurological voice disorders. This study presents an analysis of the test-retest reliability of RFF in individuals with healthy voices and a comparison of reliability between RFF and conventional measures of voice. Method: Acoustic and aerodynamic measurements and Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) were performed on 28 individuals with healthy voices on 5 consecutive days. Participants produced RFF stimuli, a sustained /a/, and a reading passage to allow for extraction of acoustic measures and CAPE-V ratings; /pa/ trains were produced to allow for extraction of aerodynamic measures. Results: Moderate reliabilities (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = .64-.71) were found for RFF values. Mean vocal fundamental frequency, smoothed cepstral peak prominence, shimmer, harmonics-to-noise ratio, and mean airflow rate exhibited good-to-excellent reliabilities (ICC = .76-.99). ICCs for jitter and phonation threshold pressure were moderately reliable (ICC = .67-.74). ICCs for subglottal pressure estimates and all CAPE-V parameters showed poor reliabilities (ICC = .31-.58). Conclusion: RFF has comparable reliability to conventional measures of voice. This expands the potential for clinical application of RFF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Education Research Complete

Description
Abstract:	Purpose: Recent studies have shown that an acoustic measure, relative fundamental frequency (RFF), has potential for the assessment of excessive laryngeal tension and vocal effort associated with functional and neurological voice disorders. This study presents an analysis of the test-retest reliability of RFF in individuals with healthy voices and a comparison of reliability between RFF and conventional measures of voice. Method: Acoustic and aerodynamic measurements and Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) were performed on 28 individuals with healthy voices on 5 consecutive days. Participants produced RFF stimuli, a sustained /a/, and a reading passage to allow for extraction of acoustic measures and CAPE-V ratings; /pa/ trains were produced to allow for extraction of aerodynamic measures. Results: Moderate reliabilities (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = .64-.71) were found for RFF values. Mean vocal fundamental frequency, smoothed cepstral peak prominence, shimmer, harmonics-to-noise ratio, and mean airflow rate exhibited good-to-excellent reliabilities (ICC = .76-.99). ICCs for jitter and phonation threshold pressure were moderately reliable (ICC = .67-.74). ICCs for subglottal pressure estimates and all CAPE-V parameters showed poor reliabilities (ICC = .31-.58). Conclusion: RFF has comparable reliability to conventional measures of voice. This expands the potential for clinical application of RFF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	10924388
DOI:	10.1044/2019_JSLHR-S-18-0507