Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
8 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Advantages of auditory-perceptual ratings
|
Auditory-perceptual judgments carry advantages of convenience, economy, and robustness
Part of most protocols for evaluating pathological voices Important in both clinical diagnosis and evaluating tx outcomes |
|
|
Problems with auditory-perceptual evaluation
|
Is subjective
Subjective evaluation does not constitute a less valuable, less rigorous, or less robust measure of any given index of function Must take care to address issues of validity and reliability in order to increase the strength of these outcomes |
|
|
Why not use objective measures to rate voice?
|
Acoustic programs not always reliable
Some found that listeners rated as good or better than computers to rate jitter Objective measures of voice often only moderately correlate with perceptual dimensions (as well as functional outcome measures) - they may be evaluating somewhat different aspects of function |
|
|
Sources of variability in auditory-perceptual evaluation
|
1. Scales used in clinical application and research often are inappropriate for measuring voice quality attributes.
2. Listeners do not have a common understanding of perceptual labels and descriptors. 3. Listeners are unable to discriminate single perceptual dimensions from complex stimuli. 4. Listeners have difficulty maintaining consistent judgments, both within and across judges (i.e., issues related to intra- and interrater reliability) |
|
|
How to improve robustness of auditory-perceptual scales?
|
1. Ensure high quality recordings
2 a. Provide definitions of agreed-upon dimensions b. Train naive listeners c. Replace internal standards with referent voices d. Other methods? 3. Use scales that are valid for particular dimension; use dimensions that have perceptual reality for listeners 4. Use connected speech samples in addition to vowels? |
|
|
4 Generic types of rating scales
|
1. Categorical ratings - "bin approach" (e.g., rough, breathy, harsh, etc.)
2. Equal-Appearing Interval (EAI) Scales: based on fixed, pre-defined scale values suggesting "equality" of perceptual distance between components 1 = Unpleasant ; 9 = Very Pleasant 3. Direct Magnitude Estimation (DME): a method of perceptual ratio scaling Modulus = 100 Twice as "pleasant" = 200 Half as "pleasant" = 50 4. Visual analog scales: undifferentiated lines (e.g., 100 mm long) Not Rough ----- Extremely Rough |
|
|
5 Commonly used rating tools in evaluating voice
|
1. Fairbanks' Classification System
2. Wilson Scale 3. Wilson / Brackett Scale 4. GRBAS Scale 5. Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) |
|
|
Fairbanks' Classification System
|
Correlates with degree of glottal opening
Continuum of voice qualities are representative of the mechanics OPEN CLOSED Breathy ----- Hoarse ----- Harsh |
