Use of the program MDVP in different contexts: a literature review
Uso do programa MDVP em diferentes contextos: revisão de literatura
Mara Keli Christmann; Ana Rita Brancalioni; Carolina Ramos de Freitas; Diéssica Zacarias Vargas; Márcia Keske-Soares; Carolina Lisbôa Mezzomo; Helena Bolli Mota
Abstract
This study aims to describe, from a literature review, the reliability of the acoustic analysis using the Multi Dimensional Voice Program, comparison of its measures with other programs of acoustic analysis; characterization of voices from different groups; and its use to verify the effects and efficacy of different therapeutic procedures. A bibliographic survey was carried out, prioritizing studies of the last five years, including articles whose objective was in agreement with the interest of the present review. The research was carried out in the databases of the Lilacs, BIREME, PubMed, MedLine, Scielo and Google Schoolar databases, through the descriptors acoustic, speech acoustics and voice. The most used measures are fundamental frequency, jitter, shimmer and harmonic-noise ratio. The tremor measurements do not present good reliability. The most consistent measures that present high agreement with other acoustic analysis programs are those related to the fundamental frequency. Several studies seek to characterize different types of voices such as those of subjects without vocal alterations of both sexes, seeking to establish a parameter of normality for different population groups. In addition, some studies characterize voices with different disorders. Acoustic analysis is an objective and necessary resource in the evaluation of patients with vocal disorder and, mainly, in the comparison of several types of treatment.
Keywords
Resumo
Este estudo tem como objetivo descrever, a partir de revisão de literatura, a confiabilidade da análise acústica utilizando o Multi Dimensional Voice Program, comparação de suas medidas com outros programas de análise acústica; caracterização de vozes de diferentes grupos; e sua utilização para verificar os efeitos e eficácia de diferentes procedimentos terapêuticos. Realizou-se levantamento bibliográfico que priorizaram estudos dos últimos cinco anos, incluindo-se artigos cujo objetivo estivesse de acordo com o interesse da presente revisão. A pesquisa foi realizada nos bancos de dados das bases Lilacs, BIREME, PubMed, MedLine, Scielo e Google Schoolar, por meio dos descritores acoustic, speech acoustics e voice. As medidas mais utilizadas são frequência fundamental, jitter, shimmer e proporção harmônico-ruído. As medidas de tremor não apresentam boa confiabilidade. As medidas mais consistentes que apresentam alta concordância com outros programas de análise acústica são as relacionadas com a frequência fundamental. Diversos estudos buscam caracterizar diferentes tipos de vozes tais como as de sujeitos sem alterações vocais de ambos os sexos, buscando estabelecer parâmetro de normalidade para diferentes grupos populacionais. Além disso, alguns estudos caracterizam vozes com diferentes distúrbios. A análise acústica é um recurso objetivo e necessário na avaliação de pacientes com distúrbio vocal e, principalmente, na comparação de diversos tipos de tratamento.
Palavras-chave
References
1. Behlau M. Voz: O livro do especialista. v.1. Rio de Janeiro: Revinter, 2001.
2. Hammarberg B. Voice research and clinical needs. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2000;52(1-3):93-102.
3. Bele IV. Reliability in perceptual analysis of voice quality. J Voice. 2005;19(4):555-73.
4. Felippe ACN, Grillo MHMM, Grechi TH. Normatização de medidas acústicas para vozes normais. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol. 2006;72(5):659-64.
5. Guimarães I, Abberton E. Health and voice quality in smokers: an exploratory investigation. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2005;30(3-4):185-91.
6. Vieira VP, Biase NG, Vieira ACM, Pontes A. Análise acústica vocal computadorizada como auxiliar no diagnóstico das vozes neurológicas - relato de casos. Acta ORL. 2008;26(1):44-9.
7. Kasuya H, Endo Y, Saliu S. Novel acoustic measurements of jitter and shimmer characteristics from pathological voice. EUROSPEECH. 1993;13(7):1973-6.
8. Deliyski D. Acoustic model and evaluation of pathological voice production. Proc 3rd Conference on Speech Communication and Technology EUROSPEECH. 1993; 1969-72.
9. Buder EH. Acoustic analysis of voice quality: a tabulation of algorithms 1902-1990. In: Kent RD, Ball MJ, editors. Voice quality measurement. San Diego: Singular; 2000. p.119-244.
10. Maryn Y, Corthals P, De Bodt M, Van Cauwenberge P, Deliyski D. Perturbation measures of voice: A comparative study between Multi-Dimensional Voice Program and Praat. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2009;61(4):217-26.
11. Bhuta T, Patrick L, Garnett JD. Perceptual evaluation of voice quality and its correlation with acoustic measurements. J Voice. 2004;18(3):299-304.
12. Wuyts FL, De Bodt MS, Molenberghs G, Remacle M, Heylen L, Millet B et al. The Dysphonia Severity Index: an objective measure of vocal quality based on a multiparameter approach. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43(3):796-809.
13. Speyer R, Wieneke GH, Dejonckere PH. Documentation of progress in voice therapy: perceptual, acoustic, and laryngostroboscopic findings pretherapy and posttherapy. J Voice. 2004;18(3):325-40.
14. Yu P, Ouaknine M, Revis J, Giovanni A. Objective voice analysis for dysphonic patients: a multiparametric protocol including acoustic and aerodynamic measurements. J Voice. 2001;15(4):529-42.
15. Awan SN, Roy N. Outcomes measurement in voice disorders: application of an acoustic index of dysphonia severity. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009;52(2):482-99.
16. Hartl DM, Hans S, Vaissière J, Brasnu DF. Objective acoustic and aerodynamic measures of breathiness in paralytic dysphonia. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2003;260(4):175-82.
17. Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia. Manual oficial de procedimentos. São Paulo: Roca; 2007.
18. Carrillo LMA, Ortiz B. Análise vocal (auditiva e acústica) nas disfonias por nódulos vocais antes e após fonoterapia. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2007;12(3):8-13.
19. Sampaio M, Reis EJFB, Carvalho FM, Porto LA, Araújo TM. Vocal effort and voice handicap among teachers. J Voice. 2012;26(6):820.e15-8.
20. Schwarz K, Cielo CA. Vocal and laryngeal modifications produced by the sonorous tongue vibration technique. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2009;14(1):11-6.
21. Christmann MK, Scapini F, Lima JPM, Gonçalves BFT, Bortagarai FM, Mancopes R et al. Avaliação acústica em mulheres adultas jovens. Rev. CEFAC. 2014;16(5):1392-7.
22. Brockmann M, Drinnan MJ, Storck C, Carding PN. Reliable jitter and shimmer measurements in voice clinics: the relevance of vowel, gender, vocal intensity, and fundamental frequency effects in a typical clinical task. J Voice. 2011;25(1):44-53.
23. Manfredi C, D'Aniello M, Bruscaglioni P, Ismaelli A. A comparative analysis of fundamental frequency estimation methods with application to pathological voices. Med Eng Phys. 2000;22(2):135-47.
24. Lopes LW, Lima ILB, Almeida LNA, Cavalcante DP, Almeida AAF. Severity of voice disorders in children: correlations between perceptual and acoustic data. J Voice. 2012;26(6):819.e7-12.
25. Natour YS, Saleem AF. The performance of the Multi-Dimensional Voice Program (MDVP) in Identifying Jordanian Dysphonic Patients. ENT-Ear, Nose & Throat Journal. 2009;88:E1.
26. Lopes LW, Cabral GF, Almeida AAF. Vocal Tract Discomfort Symptoms in Patients with Different Voice Disorders. J Voice. 2015;29(3):317-23.
27. Pribuisiene R, Uloza V, Kupcinskas L, Jonaitis L. Perceptual and acoustic characteristics of voice changes in reflux laryngitis patients. J Voice. 2006;20(1):128-36.
28. Sá Junior IRD, Almeida AAFD, Lopes LW, Balata PMM, Silva HJD. Acoustic analysis of vocal stability of teachers in the school environment. Rev. CEFAC. 2013;15(6):1607-16.
29. Cantarella G, Iofrida E, Boria P, Giordano L, Bianchi M, Mevio N et al. Ambulatory phonation monitoring in a sample of 92 call center operators. J Voice. 2014;28(3):393.e1-393.e10.
30. Quintela AS, Santos MARC, Lopes LW, Lima JRF, Silva EG, Silva POC et al. Auto-avaliação e análise vocal acústica em professores antes e após oficinas de saúde vocal. Rev. CEFAC. 2013;15(4):991-7.
31. Schwarz K, Cielo CA. Modificações laríngeas e vocais produzidas pela técnica de vibração sonorizada de língua. Pró-Fono R. Atual Cient. 2009;21(2):161-6.
32. Pessin ABB, Tavares ELM, Gramuglia ACJ, Carvalho LR, Martins RHG. Voice and ageing: clinical, endoscopic and acoustic investigation. Clin Otolaryngol. 2017;42(2):330-5.
33. Frota S, Cruz M, Svartman F, Collischonn G, Fonseca A, Serra C et al. Prosodic variation in european portuguese: phrasing, intonation and rhythm in central-southern varieties. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences; 2007.
34. Cordeiro GF, Montagnoli AN, Nemr NK, Menezes MHM, Tsuji DH. Comparative analysis of jitter determination algorithms for samples of normal voice and pathological voice: amplitude perturbation quotient and Multi-Dimensional Voice Program. Pró-Fono R. Atual Cient. 2010;22(3):261-6.
35. Behlau M, Madazio G, Feijó D, Pontes P. Avaliação de voz. In: Behlau M. Voz: O livro do especialista. v.1. Rio de Janeiro: Revinter, 2001. p.85-180.
36. Soyama CK, Espassatempo CDL, Gregio FN, Camargo Z. Qualidade vocal na disfonia paralítica unilateral: correlatos perceptivos auditivos e acústicos. Rev. CEFAC. 2005;7(3):363-7.
37. Christmann MK, Gonçalves BFT, Lima JPM, Bastilha GR, Cielo CA. Finger Kazoo associado a sons hiperagudos: medidas vocais acústicas. Rev. CEFAC. 2015;17(3):838-46.
38. Andrade BMR, Valença EHO, Salvatori R, Souza AHO, Oliveira-Neto LA, Oliveira AHA et al. Effects of therapy with hyperacute sounds in subjects with severe isolated growth hormone deficiency. Rev. CEFAC. 2014;16(3):986-90.
39. Vaiano TCG, Guerrieri AC, Behlau M. Body and voice perception in adolescents with eating disorders. Audiol Commun Res. 2014;19(2):187-93.
Submitted date:
01/20/2015
Accepted date:
05/12/2015
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email