• Journal of the Korean Society of Laryngology, Phoniatrics and Logopedics
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.71-78
• /
• 2017

Voice disorder is classified into three categories, structural, neurogenic and functional dysphonia. Neurogenic dysphonia refers to a disruption in the nerves controlling the larynx. Common examples of this include complete or partial vocal cord paralysis, spasmodic dysphonia. Also it occurs as part of an underlying neurologic condition such as Parkinson's disease, myasthenia gravis, Lou Gehrig's disease or disorder of the central nervous system that causes involuntary movement of the vocal folds during voice production. Functional dysphonia is a voice disorder in the absence of structual or neurogenic laryngeal characteristics. A near consensus exist that Muscle tension dysphonia (MTD) is functional voice disorder wherein hyperfunctional laryngeal muscle activity whereas Spasmodic dysphonia (SD) is neurogenic, action-induced focal laryngeal dystonia including several subtype. Both Adductor type spasmodic dysphonia (AdSD) and MTD may be associated with excessive supraglottic contraction and compensation, resulting in a strained voice quality with spastic voice breaks. It makes these two disorders extremely difficult to differentiate based on clinical interpretation alone. Because treatment for AdSD and MTD are quite different, correct diagnosis is important. Clinician should be aware of the specific vocal characteristics of each disease to improve therapeutic outcome.

• Phonetics and Speech Sciences
• /
• v.6 no.3
• /
• pp.63-72
• /
• 2014

The current study assessed the utility of acoustic analyses the most commonly used in routine clinical voice assessment including perturbation, nonlinear dynamic analysis, and Spectral/Cepstrum analysis based on signal typing of dysphonic voices and investigated their applicability of clinical acoustic analysis methods. A total of 70 dysphonic voice samples were classified with signal typing using narrowband spectrogram. Traditional parameters of %jitter, %shimmer, and signal-to-noise ratio were calculated for the signals using TF32 and correlation dimension(D2) of nonlinear dynamic parameter and spectral/cepstral measures including mean CPP, CPP_sd, CPPf0, CPPf0_sd, L/H ratio, and L/H ratio_sd were also calculated with ADSV(Analysis of Dysphonia in Speech and VoiceTM). Auditory perceptual analysis was performed by two blinded speech-language pathologists with GRBAS. The results showed that nearly periodic Type 1 signals were all functional dysphonia and Type 4 signals were comprised of neurogenic and organic voice disorders. Only Type 1 voice signals were reliable for perturbation analysis in this study. Significant signal typing-related differences were found in all acoustic and auditory-perceptual measures. SNR, CPP, L/H ratio values for Type 4 were significantly lower than those of other voice signals and significant higher %jitter, %shimmer were observed in Type 4 voice signals(p<.001). Additionally, with increase of signal type, D2 values significantly increased and more complex and nonlinear patterns were represented. Nevertheless, voice signals with highly noise component associated with breathiness were not able to obtain D2. In particular, CPP, was highly sensitive with voice quality 'G', 'R', 'B' than any other acoustic measures. Thus, Spectral and cepstral analyses may be applied for more severe dysphonic voices such as Type 4 signals and CPP can be more accurate and predictive acoustic marker in measuring voice quality and severity in dysphonia.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Laryngology, Phoniatrics and Logopedics
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.100-105
• /
• 2017

Background and Objectives : Adductor type spasmodic dysphonia (ADSD) is neurogenic disorder and focal laryngeal dystonia, while muscle tension dysphonia (MTD) is caused by functional voice disorder. Both ADSD and MTD may be associated with excessive supraglottic contraction and compensation, resulting in a strained voice quality with spastic voice breaks. The aim of this study was to determine the utility of spectrogram analysis in the differentiation of ADSD from MTD. Materials and Methods : From 2015 through 2017, 17 patients of ADSD and 20 of MTD, underwent acoustic recording and phonatory function studies, were enrolled. Jitter (frequency perturbation), Shimmer (amplitude perturbation) were obtained using MDVP (Multi-dimensional Voice Program) and GRBAS scale was used for perceptual evaluation. The two speech therapist evaluated a wide band (11,250 Hz) spectrogram by blind test using 4 scales (0-3 point) for four spectral findings, abrupt voice breaks, irregular wide spaced vertical striations, well defined formants and high frequency spectral noise. Results : Jitter, Shimmer and GRBAS were not found different between two groups with no significant correlation (p>0.05). Abrupt voice breaks and irregular wide spaced vertical striations of ADSD were significantly higher than those of MTD with strong correlation (p<0.01). High frequency spectral noise of MTD were higher than those of ADSD with strong correlation (p<0.01). Well defined formants were not found different between two groups. Conclusion : The wide band spectrograms provided visual perceptual information can differentiate ADSD from MTD. Spectrogram analysis is a useful diagnostic tool for differentiating ADSD from MTD where perceptual analysis and clinical evaluation alone are insufficient.