Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36229669›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2023

Relationship of cepstral analysis with voice self-assessments in dysphonic and normal speakers.

Saeed Saeedi, Mahshid Aghajanzadeh, Seyyedeh Maryam Khoddami, Payman Dabirmoghaddam, Shohreh Jalaie

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Saeed SaeediDepartment of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mahshid AghajanzadehDepartment of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. mahshid_aghajanzade@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5071-0612
Seyyedeh Maryam KhoddamiDepartment of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Payman DabirmoghaddamOtorhinolaryngology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Shohreh JalaieDepartment of Physiotherapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed to investigate the relationship of cepstral analysis (Cepstral Peak Prominence [CPP] and Cepstral Peak Prominence-Smoothed [CPPS]) with voice self-assessments (The Persian version of vocal tract discomfort [VTDp] scale and non-standard hoarseness self-assessment [NHS] questionnaire).

methods223 participants (159 with and 64 without dysphonia) were asked to utter the vocal tasks namely vowels /a/ and /e/, six standard sentences, and a non-standard connected speech sample. CPP and CPPS were calculated in these three vocal tasks using the "Praat" software. The participants also asked to complete the VTDp scale and the NHS questionnaire.

resultsThe means of frequency and severity the VTDp and the means of NHS were statistically different between the dysphonic and normal voice groups (P < 0.05), except for tickling (P > 0.05). There was a very low significant correlation between cepstral analysis with aching and in the dysphonic group (P < 0.05). However, a very low to low significant correlation between cepstral analysis with burning, tight, aching, tickling, sore, and both frequency and severity subscales scores of the VTDp in the normal voice group (P < 0.05). Moreover, the means of the cepstral analysis did not differ significantly between all scores of the NHS in the dysphonic the normal voice groups (P > 0.05), except for 1 with 3, 4, and 5 in the dysphonic group (P < 0.05).

conclusionThe cepstral analysis can provide some information about the status of vocal tract and person's perception of his/her own voice quality.

Indexed as

DysphoniaVoiceFemaleHumansMaleSelf-AssessmentSpeechSpeech AcousticsSpeech Production MeasurementCepstral analysisDysphoniaInstrumental acoustic voice analysisSelf-assessmentVocal tract discomfort

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.