ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2026
Validation of Novel Clinical Scales for Perceptual Evaluation of Vocal Breathiness and Roughness.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePerceived voice quality (VQ) ratings provide data with ordinal characteristics on arbitrary scales regarding the relative order of VQ disruptions ranging from mild to severe quality. The overarching goal of this research is to develop a new and rigorous method for perceptual evaluation of VQ using quantitative comparisons and facilitating standardized comparisons across time points, clinicians, and clinical sites. Our prior research developed standard ratio-level scales of breathy and rough VQ analogous to the sone scale that (a) have physical units, (b) are strongly related to psychophysical measures, and (c) can quantify not just the direction but also the magnitude of change. The current study reestablishes the standard reference points, validates the newly developed VQ scales with natural dysphonic stimuli, and evaluates the psychometric measurement properties of the novel scales for breathiness and roughness in a small clinical pilot experiment.
methodIn the first experiment, a set of magnitude estimation (ME) tasks were first used to determine the perceived magnitudes of breathiness and roughness of 10 natural voice stimuli in each VQ continuum. The resulting data were compared with previously acquired magnitude estimates of the synthetic comparison stimuli to adjust the reference points. In the second experiment, a set of inexperienced listeners evaluated the same set of natural dysphonic stimuli using the new clinical scales with perceived magnitude expressed in standard VQ units. In the third experiment, two expert clinicians evaluated 12 breathy and 10 rough dysphonic voices (pre- and posttreatment) using the new VQ scales.
resultsThe standard reference units were identified as 15 dB SNR for breathiness and -26 dB modulation depth for roughness. The strength of the relationship between the ME data and the predicted values from the clinical scales was high for both breathiness and roughness (
conclusionSuch formal VQ scales support valid quantitative comparisons of perceptual judgments and represent a critical step in clinical translation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.