MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1080/14015439.2020.1767202

Медицинская библиотека · Logopedics, phoniatrics, vocology · 2020

Assessment of dysphonia: cepstral analysis versus conventional acoustic analysis.

Hassan Elham Moamen, Abdel Hady Aisha Fawzy, Shohdi Sahar Saad, Eldessouky Hossam Mohammed, Din Mohammed Hussein Badrel

СтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to determine the extent to which smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPPS) can replace or complement the conventional acoustic measures of jitter, shimmer, and harmonic-to-noise ratio in the assessment of various types of dysphonia.

METHODOLOGY: A total of 60 males and 80 females were divided into two groups: dysphonic group and control group (30 males and 40 females in each group). The voice samples in the form of sustained vowel /a/ phonation and continuous speech were recorded and assessed using auditory perceptual analysis, acoustic analysis, and cepstral analysis.

RESULTS

Jitter was found to have the best predictive ability during sustained phonation, whereas CPPS was found to have the best predictive ability during continuous speech.

CONCLUSION

Cepstral analysis is as reliable as the conventional acoustic analysis in the diagnosis of dysphonia and to detect its severity. However, CPPS cannot replace conventional acoustic measures.

Для цитирования: Hassan Elham Moamen, Abdel Hady Aisha Fawzy, Shohdi Sahar Saad, Eldessouky Hossam Mohammed, Din Mohammed Hussein Badrel. Assessment of dysphonia: cepstral analysis versus conventional acoustic analysis.. Logopedics, phoniatrics, vocology. 2020. DOI: 10.1080/14015439.2020.1767202.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.