دورية أكاديمية
أعرض في EDS

Comparative Analysis of Two Methods of Perceptual Voice Assessment.

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: Comparative Analysis of Two Methods of Perceptual Voice Assessment.
المؤلفون: Feinstein H; Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware. Electronic address: hagarfe@udel.edu., Daşdöğen Ü; Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware., Awan JA; Department of Statistics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana., Awan SN; Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida., Abbott KV; Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware; Department of Linguistics & Cognitive Science, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware.
المصدر: Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation [J Voice] 2023 Mar 10. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Mar 10.
Publication Model: Ahead of Print
نوع المنشور: Journal Article
اللغة: English
بيانات الدورية: Publisher: Mosby Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 8712262 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1873-4588 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 08921997 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J Voice Subsets: MEDLINE
أسماء مطبوعة: Publication: 2003- : St. Louis, MO : Mosby
Original Publication: [New York, N.Y.] : Raven Press, 1987-
مستخلص: Objectives: The primary aim was to compare two methods for perceptual evaluation of voice - paired comparison (PC) and visual analog scale (VAS) ratings. Secondary aims were to assess the correspondence between two dimensions of voice- overall severity of voice quality and resonant voice, and to investigate the influence of rater experience on perceptual rating scores and rating confidence scores.
Study Design: Experimental design.
Methods: Voice samples from six children (pre and post therapy) were rated by 15 Speech-Language Pathologists specialized in voice. Raters completed four tasks corresponding to the two rating methods and voice qualities: PC-severity, PC-resonance, VAS-severity, and VAS-resonance. For PC tasks, raters chose the better of two voice samples (better voice quality or better resonance, depending on the task) and indicated the degree of confidence in each choice. Rating and confidence score were combined to produce a number on a 1-10 scale (PC-confidence adjusted). VAS ratings involved rating voices on a scale for degree of severity and resonance, respectively.
Results: PC-confidence adjusted and VAS ratings were moderately correlated for overall severity and also vocal resonance. VAS ratings were normally distributed and had greater rater consistency than PC-confidence adjusted ratings. VAS scores reliably predicted binary PC choices (choice of voice sample only). Overall severity and vocal resonance were weakly correlated and rater experience was not linearly related to rating scores or confidence.
Conclusions: Results suggest that the VAS rating method holds advantages over PC, including normally distributed ratings, superior consistency of ratings, and the ability to provide more finely grained detail regarding the auditory perception of voice. Overall severity and vocal resonance were not redundant in the current data set, suggesting that resonant voice and overall severity are not isomorphic. Finally, the number of years of clinical experience was not linearly related to perceptual ratings or rating confidence.
(Copyright © 2023 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
References: J Voice. 2006 Jun;20(2):229-41. (PMID: 16139475)
J Speech Hear Res. 1995 Feb;38(1):26-32. (PMID: 7731216)
J Voice. 2012 Sep;26(5):666.e13-21. (PMID: 22243971)
Codas. 2015 May-Jun;27(3):279-84. (PMID: 26222946)
Clin Linguist Phon. 2007 Feb;21(2):129-45. (PMID: 17364621)
J Voice. 1997 Mar;11(1):74-80. (PMID: 9075179)
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011 Apr;54(2):430-47. (PMID: 20884782)
J Speech Hear Res. 1990 Mar;33(1):103-15. (PMID: 2314068)
J Acoust Soc Am. 1996 Sep;100(3):1787-95. (PMID: 8817904)
J Speech Hear Res. 1992 Jun;35(3):512-20. (PMID: 1608242)
J Speech Hear Res. 1993 Feb;36(1):14-20. (PMID: 8450655)
J Speech Hear Res. 1993 Feb;36(1):21-40. (PMID: 8450660)
J Voice. 2004 Sep;18(3):415-22. (PMID: 15331116)
Clin Linguist Phon. 2010 Sep;24(9):742-58. (PMID: 20687828)
J Voice. 2009 May;23(3):341-52. (PMID: 18346869)
Anesthesiology. 2003 Jan;98(1):41-5. (PMID: 12502977)
J Voice. 1999 Dec;13(4):508-17. (PMID: 10622517)
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63. (PMID: 27330520)
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2004 Sep;261(8):429-34. (PMID: 14615893)
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019 Feb 26;62(2):272-282. (PMID: 30950698)
J Acoust Soc Am. 2000 Oct;108(4):1867-76. (PMID: 11051513)
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2006 Oct;115(10):784-8. (PMID: 17076102)
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2021 Jan 27;30(1):228-238. (PMID: 33439742)
Laryngoscope. 2015 Jun;125(6):1420-5. (PMID: 25641591)
Laryngoscope. 2012 Nov;122(11):2511-8. (PMID: 22965771)
J Acoust Soc Am. 1994 Sep;96(3):1291-302. (PMID: 7962996)
J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Nov;110(5 Pt 1):2560-6. (PMID: 11757945)
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009 May;18(2):124-32. (PMID: 18930908)
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1994 May;103(5 Pt 1):335-46. (PMID: 8179248)
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2022 Aug 17;65(8):2759-2777. (PMID: 35868295)
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001 Feb;44(1):29-37. (PMID: 11218106)
J Voice. 2022 Nov;36(6):876.e17-876.e26. (PMID: 33041178)
J Voice. 2010 Jul;24(4):441-9. (PMID: 19135856)
J Voice. 2005 Dec;19(4):574-81. (PMID: 16301103)
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015 Apr;58(2):227-40. (PMID: 25652615)
J Voice. 2021 Nov 5;:. (PMID: 34750034)
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2007 Sep;116(9):695-701. (PMID: 17926593)
J Voice. 2021 Aug 24;:. (PMID: 34452778)
Am J Anat. 1978 Jan;151(1):11-9. (PMID: 623031)
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208. (PMID: 31078660)
J Voice. 2014 May;28(3):274-81. (PMID: 24461477)
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1999 Mar;108(3):232-8. (PMID: 10086614)
J Voice. 1995 Mar;9(1):74-85. (PMID: 7757153)
J Voice. 2021 Jul;35(4):663.e9-663.e16. (PMID: 31932189)
Anesth Analg. 2018 May;126(5):1763-1768. (PMID: 29481436)
J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):1598-608. (PMID: 9745743)
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Aug;87:11-7. (PMID: 27368436)
J Voice. 2014 Jul;28(4):476-86. (PMID: 24629646)
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011 Aug;54(4):1011-21. (PMID: 21173391)
Semin Speech Lang. 2013 May;34(2):80-93. (PMID: 23633172)
J Voice. 2010 Sep;24(5):564-73. (PMID: 19765949)
J Voice. 2017 Mar;31(2):218-228. (PMID: 27241579)
J Voice. 2017 Jan;31(1):67-71. (PMID: 26873420)
معلومات مُعتمدة: R01 DC009029 United States DC NIDCD NIH HHS; R01 DC017923 United States DC NIDCD NIH HHS
فهرسة مساهمة: Keywords: Paired comparison; Pediatric voice; Resonant voice; Visual analog scale; Voice perception
تواريخ الأحداث: Date Created: 20230312 Latest Revision: 20240911
رمز التحديث: 20240911
مُعرف محوري في PubMed: PMC10492895
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2023.01.005
PMID: 36907680
قاعدة البيانات: MEDLINE
الوصف
تدمد:1873-4588
DOI:10.1016/j.jvoice.2023.01.005