Pediatric voice analysis: comparison of 2 computerized analysis systems

This research contributes to the pediatric objective voice measurement database while identifying comparable measurements between 2 available voice analysis systems. To compare selective normative pediatric acoustic variables between the Multi-Dimensional Voice Program (MDVP) and the Voice Evaluatio...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery Vol. 140; no. 8; p. 742
Main Authors Rohrer, Joseph, Maturo, Stephen, Hill, Courtney, Bunting, Glenn, Ballif, Cathy, Hartnick, Christopher
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States 01.08.2014
Subjects
Adolescent
Child
Child, Preschool
Cross-Sectional Studies
Databases, Factual
Female
Humans
Male
Otolaryngology - instrumentation
Reference Values
Software
Speech - physiology
Speech Acoustics
Voice - physiology
Voice Quality
Young Adult
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

More Information
Summary:This research contributes to the pediatric objective voice measurement database while identifying comparable measurements between 2 available voice analysis systems. To compare selective normative pediatric acoustic variables between the Multi-Dimensional Voice Program (MDVP) and the Voice Evaluation Suite (VES) computerized voice analysis systems. Additionally, it describes the first comprehensive pediatric database analyzing fundamental frequency, jitter, shimmer, and noise to harmonic ratio using the VES. Cross-sectional study with planned data collection conducted at a tertiary referral otolaryngologic clinic. Participants were 335 children, aged 4 to 18 years, with normal voices. Objective voice data were collected on the MDVP and the VES systems. Fundamental frequency, jitter, shimmer, and noise to harmonic ratio. The fundamental frequencies agreed with previous pediatric normative values. There was not a statistically significant difference between MDVP and VES measurements of mean fundamental frequency (P = .23). Jitter percentage (P < .001), shimmer percentage (P < .001), and noise to harmonic ratio (P < .002) for all children were statistically different between the 2 voice evaluation systems. These data show that the measured fundamental frequency of normal voices in children is comparable between the MDVP and VES voice analysis systems. Jitter, shimmer, and noise to harmonic ratio values are not interchangeable between voice analysis systems. The voice analysis system should be reported when providing voice measurement outcomes in the literature.
ISSN:2168-619X
DOI:10.1001/jamaoto.2014.1162