Vowel onset measures and their reliability, sensitivity and specificity: A systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the evidence for the reliability, sensitivity and specificity of existing measures of vowel-initial voice onset. METHODS: A literature search was conducted across electronic databases for published studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, PubMed Central, IEEE Xplore) and grey literature (ProQuest for unpublished dissertations) measuring vowel onset. Eligibility criteria included research of any study design type or context focused on measuring human voice onset on an initial vowel. Two independent reviewers were involved at each stage of title and abstract screening, data extraction and analysis. Data extracted included measures used, their reliability, sensitivity and specificity. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE as the data of interest was extracted. RESULTS: The search retrieved 6,983 records. Titles and abstracts were screened against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers, with a third reviewer responsible for conflict resolution. Thirty-five papers were included in the review, which identified five categories of voice onset measurement: auditory perceptual, acoustic, aerodynamic, physiological and visual imaging. Reliability was explored in 14 papers with varied reliability ratings, while sensitivity was rarely assessed, and no assessment of specificity was conducted across any of the included records. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate with high variability in methodology and voice onset measures used. CONCLUSIONS: A range of vowel-initial voice onset measurements have been applied throughout the literature, however, there is a lack of evidence regarding their sensitivity, specificity and reliability in the detection and discrimination of voice onset types. Heterogeneity in study populations and methods used preclude conclusions on the most valid measures. There is a clear need for standardisation of research methodology, and for future studies to examine the practicality of these measures in research and clinical settings.

Vocal tasks for acoustic and/or auditory perceptual analysis for discriminating individuals with and without voice disorders: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the present systematic review is to: (1) identify the current vocal tasks being used for acoustic and/or auditory perceptual analysis to differentiate between individuals with and without voice disorders. The secondary objectives are to: (2) evaluate the evidence of the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of those vocal tasks for acoustic and/or auditory perceptual analysis in discriminating the individuals with voice disorders from those without; and (3) compare the values between the vocal tasks in discriminating individuals with voice disorders from those without. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: We search the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed Central and Google Scholar. Grey literature searches will include ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Websites of professional organisations and textbooks will be hand searched for relevant information related to the research question. Study screening, selection and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Any disagreements will be resolved by discussion or by involving a third reviewer.The methodological quality of the included studies will be appraised using the relevant Critical Appraisal Tools by JBI. The clinical guidelines and recommendations for voice assessment by professional bodies will be appraised using the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist. The findings will be presented in the form of an information matrix with the tasks identified tabulated against the nature of the task, dimensions being tested, and their accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity in identifying individuals with voice problems. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethics approval is not required. The findings will be presented at national and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023431634.

The Relationship Between Pitch Discrimination and Acoustic Voice Measures in a Cohort of Female Speakers.

BACKGROUND: Evidence across a range of musically trained, hearing disordered and voice disordered populations present conflicting results regarding the relationship between pitch discrimination (PD) and voice quality. PD characteristics of female speakers with and without a musical training background and no self-reported voice disorder, and the relationship between PD and voice quality in this particular population, have not been investigated. AIMS: To evaluate PD characteristics in a cohort of female participants without a self-reported voice disorder and the relationship between PD and acoustic voice measures. METHOD: One hundred fourteen female participants were studied, all of whom self-reported as being non-voice disordered. All completed the Newcastle Assessment of Pitch Discrimination which involved a two-tone PD task. Their voices were recorded producing standardized vocal tasks. Voice samples were acoustically analyzed for frequency-domain measures (fundamental frequency and its standard deviation, and harmonics-to-noise ratio) and spectral-domain measures (cepstral peak prominence and the Cepstral/Spectral Index of Dysphonia). Data were analyzed for the whole cohort and for musical and non-musical training backgrounds. RESULTS: In the whole cohort, there were no significant correlations between PD and acoustic voice measures. PD accuracy in musically trained speakers was better than in non-trained speakers and correlated with fundamental frequency standard deviation in prolonged vowel tasks. Vocalists demonstrated superior PD accuracy and fundamental frequency standard deviation in prolonged vowels compared to instrumentalists but did not show significant correlations between PD and acoustic measures. The Newcastle Assessment of Pitch Discrimination was a reliable tool, showing moderate-good prediction value in differentiating musical background. CONCLUSIONS: There was little evidence of a relationship between PD and acoustic measures of voice quality, regardless of musical training background and superior PD accuracy among the musically trained. These data do not support ideas concerning the co-development of perception and action among individuals identified as having voice quality measures within normal ranges. Numerous measures of voice quality, including measures sensitive to pitch, did not distinguish across musically and non-musically trained individuals, despite individual differences in pitch discrimination.

Aerosol-generating behaviours in speech pathology clinical practice: A systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence of aerosol generation across tasks involved in voice and speech assessment and intervention, to inform better management and to reduce transmission risk of such diseases as COVID-19 in healthcare settings and the wider community. DESIGN: Systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY: Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, PubMed Central and grey literature through ProQuest, The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, COVID-Evidence and speech pathology national bodies were searched up until August 13th, 2020 for articles examining the aerosol-generating activities in clinical voice and speech assessment and intervention within speech pathology. RESULTS: Of the 8288 results found, 39 studies were included for data extraction and analysis. Included articles were classified into one of three categories: research studies, review articles or clinical guidelines. Data extraction followed appropriate protocols depending on the classification of each article (e.g. PRISMA for review articles). Articles were assessed for risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE system. Six behaviours were identified as aerosol generating. These were classified into three categories: vegetative acts (coughing, breathing), verbal communication activities of daily living (speaking, loud voicing), and performance-based tasks (singing, sustained phonation). Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate with variation in research design and variables. CONCLUSIONS: This body of literature helped to both identify and categorise the aerosol-generating behaviours involved in speech pathology clinical practice and confirm the low level of evidence throughout the speech pathology literature pertaining to aerosol generation. As many aerosol-generating behaviours are common human behaviours, these findings can be applied across healthcare and community settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Registration number CRD42020186902 with PROSPERO International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews.