Treinamento para análise perceptivo-auditiva da voz: revisão de escopo / Training for perceptive-auditory voice analysis: scope review

RESUMO Objetivo sintetizar o estado do conhecimento científico sobre treinamento para análise perceptivo-auditiva da voz. Estratégias de pesquisa a estratégia PCC (População, Conceito e Contexto) e combinações de descritores foram utilizadas para busca nas bases de dados PubMed/MEDLINE, LILACS e SciELO. Critérios de seleção foram incluídos estudos com população composta por ouvintes com ou sem experiência na análise perceptivo-auditiva, que incluíssem a análise perceptivo-auditiva da voz, no contexto da clínica vocal, utilizando vozes humanas e/ou sintetizadas, com treinamento individual ou em grupo. Foram observados método de treinamento, vozes utilizadas, tempo de treinamento e se houve treino de habilidades auditivas centrais. Resultados A literatura consultada mostrou ser comum o uso de âncoras auditivas, feedback, vozes naturais soprosas e rugosas e tempo de treinamento com duração máxima de duas horas. Nenhum estudo aplicou o treino de habilidades de processamento auditivo central no treinamento para avaliação perceptivo-auditiva da voz. Conclusão ainda não há consenso sobre qual é o melhor programa de treinamento para análise perceptivo-auditiva da voz.

ABSTRACT Purpose To synthesize the state of scientific knowledge about training for auditory-perceptual voice analysis. Research strategy Question, Concept and Context and combinations of descriptors were formulated for searching in PubMed/Medline, LILACS and SciELO databases. Selection criteria Studies were included with a population composed of listeners with or without experience in auditory-perceptual analysis, which included auditory-perceptual voice analysis, in the context of vocal clinic, using human and/or synthesized voices, with individual or group training. Training method, voices used, training time and whether there was training in central auditory skills were observed. Results It is common to use auditory anchors, feedback, breathy and rough natural voices and training time with a maximum duration of two hours. No study applied the training of central auditory processing skills in training for auditory-perceptual voice assessment. Conclusion There is still no consensus on what is the best training program for auditory-perceptual voice analysis.

Auditory Perception of Roughness and Breathiness by Dysphonic Women.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the auditory perception of roughness and breathiness by dysphonic women. METHODS: Twenty-two dysphonic native Brazilian Portuguese women participated in this research. All participants underwent audiological evaluation and laryngeal examination to confirm the diagnosis. During the tests, they recorded the sustained vowel /Ɛ/. A speech-language pathologist performed the auditory-perceptual judgment of voice quality for these vocal samples, categorizing the general degree of vocal deviation (mild, moderate, and severe degree) and the predominant type of deviation (roughness or breathiness). Thirty-two (32) stimuli were selected from a voice database, including twenty-four (24) dysphonic voice samples and eight (8) voice samples from vocally healthy women. The authors conducted five perception experiments, being three categorization tasks (normal vs. deviated, breathy vs. nonbreathy, rough vs. nonrough) and two tasks for discriminating the degree of deviation (roughness degree and breathiness degree). RESULTS: The experiments showed a difference between the answers for presence/absence of deviation, presence/absence of breathiness, and presence/absence of roughness in the stimuli, and a difference in the proportion of similar answers of dysphonic women (P < 0.001) regarding the identification of the deviation. Participants classified a large part of the deviated (57.9%), breathy (63.13%), and rough (65.31%) voices as normal. The degree of vocal deviation (P = 0.008) and the degree of roughness in the stimuli correlated positively with the proportion of similar answers of the participants. As for the discrimination of breathiness degrees, less deviated (normal and mild) voices were less discriminated, and more deviated (moderate and severe) voices were better discriminated. Regarding the discrimination of roughness degrees, only the voices with severe deviations showed good discrimination. CONCLUSION: Dysphonic women had a high rate of not similar answers in the identification of normal and deviated voices. They identified more than half of the deviated voices as normal. Samples with more severe deviations were proportionally more identified as deviated by the participants. The greater the vocal deviation of the participants' voices, the smallest the number of similar answers. Participants had a high rate of not similar answers in the identification of normal and breathy voices. Dysphonic women show less ability to perceive mildly and moderately breathy voices in the breathy category. Participants had a high rate of similar answers in the identification of normal and rough voices. Dysphonic women show less ability to perceive mildly and moderately breathy voices in the breathy category. Participants show less ability to perceive only mildly roughness voices with similar responses. Dysphonic women could discriminate between voices with adjacent degrees of roughness but had a low percentage of similar answers for discrimination between voices with adjacent degrees of breathiness.

Descritores de qualidade vocal soprosa, rugosa e saudável no senso comum / Descriptors of breathy, rough, and healthy voice quality in common sense

RESUMO Objetivo Identificar os termos referidos pela população em geral para a qualidade vocal saudável, rugosa e soprosa. Métodos foi realizado um teste, de modo presencial, com 50 participantes sem vínculos acadêmicos ou profissionais com a Fonoaudiologia. A tarefa consistia em ouvir três vozes e defini-las livremente. A primeira voz apresentada era predominantemente soprosa; a segunda, predominantemente rugosa e a terceira, vocalmente saudável. Apresentou-se a emissão sustentada da vogal /Ɛ/ e a contagem de 1 a 10. Cada participante deveria responder ao comando: "Ouça essa voz. Com qual termo você a nomearia?", digitando a resposta em uma linha disposta na tela do PowerPoint. Resultados para a voz saudável, o termo que mais se repetiu foi "normal" (36%); outros termos foram: "limpa", "comum", "padrão", "clara", "límpida", "firme", "boa", "som aberto", "definida". Para a voz rugosa, 25 participantes (50%) responderam com o termo "rouca" e os demais se dividiram em termos como "ruidosa", "chiada", "voz de fumante", "grave", "idosa", "cavernosa", "anormal", entre outros termos similares. Para a voz soprosa, 24 participantes (48%) usaram o termo "cansada"; cinco atribuíram o adjetivo "fraca"; três responderam com o termo "sem fôlego"; houve duas correspondências aos termos "arrastada" e "doente" e os demais participantes responderam com termos semelhantes: "exausta", "preguiçosa", "sonolenta", "fatigada" e afins. Conclusão os termos "normal" para voz saudável, "rouca" para voz rugosa e "cansada" para voz soprosa possibilitam a percepção mais usual desses parâmetros clínicos de qualidade vocal, para indivíduos alheios à linguagem técnico-científica da Fonoaudiologia

ABSTRACT Purpose Identify the terms mentioned by the general population for healthy, rough and breathy vocal quality. Methods A test was carried out with 50 participants, in person, without academic or professional ties with Speech Therapy. The task was to hear three voices and define them freely. The first voice presented was predominantly breathy; the second, predominantly rough and the third, vocally healthy. The sustained emission of the vowel / Ɛ / and the count from one to ten were presented. Each participant should respond to the command: "Listen to that voice. Which term would you name it?", Typing the answer on a line displayed on the PowerPoint screen. Results For the healthy voice, the term that was repeated the most was "normal" (36%), other terms were: "clean", "common", "standard", "clear", "clear", "firm", "good", "open sound", "defined". For the rough voice, twenty-five participants (50%) responded with the term "hoarse" and the others were divided into terms such as "noisy", "smoker's voice", "deep", "elderly", "cavernous", "abnormal", among other similar terms. For the breathy voice, twenty-four participants (48%) used the term "tired"; five participants assigned the adjective "weak"; three responded with the term "out of breath"; there were two correspondences to the terms "dragged" and "sick"; and the other participants responded with terms similar: "exhausted", "lazy", "sleepy", "fatigued" and the like. Conclusion The terms "normal" for a healthy voice, "hoarse" for a rough voice and "tired" for a breathy voice, allow a more usual perception of these clinical parameters of vocal quality, for individuals outside the technical-scientific language of Speech Therapy.