Phonetics and Speech Sciences (말소리와 음성과학)

Korean Society of Speech Sciences (한국음성학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A comparison of the absolute error of estimated speaking fundamental frequency (AEF0) among etiological groups of voice disorders

음성장애의 병인 집단 간 추정 발화 기본주파수 절대 오차 비교

  • Seung Jin Lee (Division of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Research Institute of Audiology and Speech Pathology, College of Natural Sciences, Hallym University) ;
  • Jae-Yol Lim (Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jaeock Kim (Major in Speech Pathology Education, Graduate School of Education, Kangnam University)
  • 이승진 (한림대학교 자연과학대학 언어청각학부 및 청각언어연구소) ;
  • 임재열 (연세대학교 의과대학 강남세브란스병원 이비인후과학교실) ;
  • 김재옥 (강남대학교 교육대학원 언어치료교육전공)
  • Received : 2023.11.16
  • Accepted : 2023.12.11
  • Published : 2023.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study compared the absolute error of estimated fundamental frequency (AEF0) using voice - (VRP) and speech range profile (SRP) tasks across various etiological groups with voice disorders. Additionally, we explored the association between AEF0 and related voice parameters within each specific etiological group. The participants included 120 individuals, comprising 30 each from the functional (FUNC), organic (ORGAN), and eurological (NEUR) voice disorder groups, and a normal control group (NC). Each participant performed voice and SRP tasks, and the fundamental frequency of connected speech was measured using electroglottography (EGG). When comparing the AEF0 measures across the etiological groups, there were no differences in Grade and Severity among the patients. However, variations were observed in AEF0VRP and AEF0SUM. Specifically, AEF0VRP was higher in the ORGAN group than in the FUNC and NC groups, whereas AEF0SUM was higher in the ORGAN group than in the NC group. Furthermore, within FUNC and NEUR, AEF0 showed a positive correlation with Grade, while in ORGAN, it exhibited a positive correlation with the mean closed quotient (CQ). Attention should be paid to the application of AEF0 measures and related voice variables based on the etiological group. This study provides foundational information for the clinical application of AEF0 measures.

본 연구에서는 음성장애 환자에서 음성 범위 프로파일(voice range profile, VRP)과 말 범위 프로파일(speech range profile, SRP)을 이용한 추정 발화 기본주파수 절대 오차(absolute error of estimated speaking fundamental frequency, AEF0)를 음성장애의 병인 집단 간에 비교하여 차이를 확인하고,각 병인 집단 별로 AEF0와 관련된 변수들 간의 상관관계를 살펴보고자 하였다. 연구대상은 음성장애로 진단된 기능적(functional, FUNC), 기질적(organic, ORGAN), 신경학적(neurogenic, NEUR) 음성장애 환자군과 정상군(normal control, NC) 각 30명(남 15명, 여 15명)으로 총 120명이었다. 각 대상자로 하여금 음성, 말 범위 프로파일 과제를 수행하도록 하고 전기성문파형검사(electroglottography, EGG)를 통해 발화 기본주파수를 측정하였다. 병인 집단 간 AEF0의 비교 결과, Grade와 Severity는 병인 집단 간 차이가 없었던 반면, AEF0VRP와 AEF0SUM에서 병인 집단 간 차이가 있어 AEF0VRP는 ORGAN이 FUNC와 NC보다 높았으며, AEF0SUM은 ORGAN이 NC보다 높았다. 또한 FUNC와 NEUR에서는 AEF0가 Grade와 양의 상관관계를 보인 반면, ORGAN은 CQ(closed quotient)와 양의 상관관계가 있었다. 따라서 병인 집단에 따라 AEF0의 적용과 관련 음성 변수를 살펴보는 데 주의를 기울여야 할 것으로 보이며, 본 연구는 이러한 임상적 판단에 대한 기초 자료를 마련하는 데 일조한 것으로 여겨진다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2023년도 한림대학교 교비연구비(HRF-202301-005)에 의하여 연구되었음.

References

  1. Boone, D. R., McFarlane, S. C., Von Berg, S. L., & Zraick, R. I. (2020). Voice and voice therapy (10th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Education.
  2. Choi, S. H., & Choi, C. H. (2016). The effect of gender and speech task on cepstral- and spectral-measures of Korean normal speakers. Audiology and Speech Research, 12(3), 157-163. https://doi.org/10.21848/asr.2016.12.3.157
  3. Choi, S. H., Yu, M., & Choi, C. H. (2021). Comparisons of 4-point GRBAS, 7-point-GRBAS, and CAPE-V for auditory perceptual evaluation of dysphonia. Audiology and Speech Research, 17(2), 206-219. https://doi.org/10.21848/asr.200086
  4. D'Alatri, L., & Marchese M. R. (2014). The speech range profile (SRP): An easy and useful tool to assess vocal limits. Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica, 34(4), 253-258.
  5. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
  6. Kim, H. (2012). Neurologic speech-language disorders. Seoul, Korea: Sigma Press.
  7. Kim, J., & Lee, S. J. (2022). Comparison of voice range profiles of modal and falsetto register in dysphonic and non-dysphonic adult women. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 14(4), 67-75.
  8. Lee, S., & Kim, J. (2020). Clinical usefulness of estimated speaking fundamental frequency using the voice and speech range profiles in voice disorders. Communication Sciences & Disorders, 25(2), 480-488. https://doi.org/10.12963/csd.20727
  9. Lee, S. J., & Kim, J. (2019). Prediction of speaking fundamental frequency using the voice and speech range profiles in normal adults. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 11(3), 49-55. https://doi.org/10.13064/KSSS.2019.11.3.049
  10. Lee, S. J., Choi, H. S., & Kim, H. H. (2019a). A comparison of voice activity and participation profiles among etiological groups. Journal of Voice, 33(5), 804.E5-804.E12.
  11. Lee, S. J., Choi, H. S., Kim, H. H., Byeon, H. K., Lim, S. E., & Yang, M. K. (2016). Korean version of the voice activity and participation profile (K-VAPP): A validation study. Communication Sciences & Disorders, 21(4), 695-708. https://doi.org/10.12963/csd.16348
  12. Lee, S. J., Kang, M. S., Park, Y. M., Choi, H. S., & Lim, J. Y. (2021). Predictive factors affecting the outcomes of angiolytic laser-assisted glottoplasty for sulcus vocalis. Journal of Voice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.09.024
  13. Lee, S. J., Kim, J., & Lim, J. Y. (2022). Responsiveness of the absolute error of estimated speaking fundamental frequency (AEF0) after surgical intervention of voice disorders. Communication Sciences & Disorders, 27(4), 894-906.
  14. Lee, S. J., Lim, S. E., Choi, H. S., & Lim, J. Y. (2019b). A comparison of voice activity and participation profiles according to the patterns of professional voice use. Communication Sciences & Disorders, 24(3), 758-769. https://doi.org/10.12963/csd.19649
  15. Ma, E. P. M., & Lam, N. L. N. (2015). Speech task effects on acoustic measure of fundamental frequency in Cantonese-speaking children. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 79(12), 2260-2264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.10.018
  16. Ma, E., Robertson, J., Radford, C., Vagne, S., El-Halabi, R., & Yiu, E. (2007). Reliability of speaking and maximum voice range measures in screening for dysphonia. Journal of Voice, 21(4), 397-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.03.004
  17. Patel, R. R., Awan, S. N., Barkmeier-Kraemer, J., Courey, M., Deliyski, D., Eadie, T., Paul, D., ..., Hillman, R. (2018). Recommended protocols for instrumental assessment of voice: American speech-language-hearing association expert panel to develop a protocol for instrumental assessment of vocal function. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 27(3), 887-905. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0009
  18. Sanchez, K., Oates, J., Dacakis, G., & Holmberg, E. B. (2014). Speech and voice range profiles of adults with untrained normal voices: Methodological implications. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 39(2), 62-71.
  19. Van Rossum, G., & Drake Jr., F. L. (2009). Python 3 reference manual. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace.
  20. Verde, L., De Pietro, G., & Sannino, G. (2018). A methodology for voice classification based on the personalized fundamental frequency estimation. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 42, 134-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2018.01.007