Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Comparison of voice intensity effects on electroglottographic versus acoustic jitter and shimmer


Brockmann, M; Drinnan, M J; Carding, P N (2009). Comparison of voice intensity effects on electroglottographic versus acoustic jitter and shimmer. In: 157 th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Portland, Oregon, USA, April 2009 - April 2009, 2532.

Abstract

Electroglottographic (EGG) jitter and shimmer have been described as more sensitive than acoustic perturbation. Recent studies documented significant voice intensity effects on acoustic parameters even in “normal” voice intensity. The aim of this cross-sectional single cohort study was to compare voice intensity effects in acoustic and electroglottographic measurements in several voice tasks. Forty healthy adults (1:1 f:m) aged 20–40 years phonated /a/ at subjective “soft,” “medium,” and “loud” voice and at 65, 75, 85, and 95 dB. Voice intensity and perturbation measurement method effects were assessed with ANOVA. Electroglottographic and acoustic perturbation were significantly different (p<0.001) at all intensity levels and lowest at highest voice intensities. Biggest differences were found between “soft” and “loud” voice in EGG measurements. Electroglottographic results were significantly higher in all tasks, for example mean shimmer in “soft” voice: acoustic 4.4% (SEM: 0.58%) and electroglottographic 7.35% (SEM: 1.02%). The measurement difference was smaller in prescribed intensities (mean shimmer at 65dB: acoustic 2.5% (SEM: 0.23) and electroglottographic 3.0% (SEM: 0.28%). Voice intensity changes strongly influence acoustic and electroglottographic perturbation and are minimized when patients control for voice intensity. Electroglottographic measurements are generally higher and stronger influenced by voice intensity changes. Future work should cover if this reflects a better sensitivity or more measurement error.

Abstract

Electroglottographic (EGG) jitter and shimmer have been described as more sensitive than acoustic perturbation. Recent studies documented significant voice intensity effects on acoustic parameters even in “normal” voice intensity. The aim of this cross-sectional single cohort study was to compare voice intensity effects in acoustic and electroglottographic measurements in several voice tasks. Forty healthy adults (1:1 f:m) aged 20–40 years phonated /a/ at subjective “soft,” “medium,” and “loud” voice and at 65, 75, 85, and 95 dB. Voice intensity and perturbation measurement method effects were assessed with ANOVA. Electroglottographic and acoustic perturbation were significantly different (p<0.001) at all intensity levels and lowest at highest voice intensities. Biggest differences were found between “soft” and “loud” voice in EGG measurements. Electroglottographic results were significantly higher in all tasks, for example mean shimmer in “soft” voice: acoustic 4.4% (SEM: 0.58%) and electroglottographic 7.35% (SEM: 1.02%). The measurement difference was smaller in prescribed intensities (mean shimmer at 65dB: acoustic 2.5% (SEM: 0.23) and electroglottographic 3.0% (SEM: 0.28%). Voice intensity changes strongly influence acoustic and electroglottographic perturbation and are minimized when patients control for voice intensity. Electroglottographic measurements are generally higher and stronger influenced by voice intensity changes. Future work should cover if this reflects a better sensitivity or more measurement error.

Statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Conference or Workshop Item (Other), not refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Otorhinolaryngology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Event End Date:April 2009
Deposited On:26 Feb 2010 17:07
Last Modified:07 Dec 2017 01:44
ISSN:0001-4966
Additional Information:Abstract published in: J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Volume 125, Issue 4, pp. 2532-2532 (April 2009)
Free access at:Official URL. An embargo period may apply.
Official URL:http://link.aip.org/link/?JAS/125/2532/2> Journal of the Acoustical Society of America; 2009, 125 (4), 2532 (Abstract)

Download

Full text not available from this repository.