[Acoustic voice analysis using the Praat program: comparative study with the Dr. Speech program].

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The European Laryngological Society (ELS) basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology includes 5 different approaches: perception, videostroboscopy, acoustics, aerodynamics and subjective rating by the patient. In this study we focused on acoustic voice analysis. The purpose of the present study was to correlate the results obtained by the commercial software Dr. Speech and the free software Praat in 2 fields: 1. Narrow-band spectrogram (the presence of noise according to Yanagihara, and the presence of subharmonics) (semi-quantitative). 2. Voice acoustic parameters (jitter, shimmer, harmonics-to-noise ratio, fundamental frequency) (quantitative).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We studied a total of 99 voice samples from individuals with Reinke's oedema diagnosed using videostroboscopy. One independent observer used Dr. Speech 3.0 and a second one used the Praat program (Phonetic Sciences, University of Amsterdam). The spectrographic analysis consisted of obtaining a narrow-band spectrogram from the previous digitalised voice samples by the 2 independent observers. They then determined the presence of noise in the spectrogram, using the Yanagihara grades, as well as the presence of subharmonics. As a final result, the acoustic parameters of jitter, shimmer, harmonics-to-noise ratio and fundamental frequency were obtained from the 2 acoustic analysis programs.

RESULTS

The results indicated that the sound spectrogram and the numerical values obtained for shimmer and jitter were similar for both computer programs, even though types 1, 2 and 3 voice samples were analysed.

CONCLUSIONS

The Praat and Dr. Speech programs provide similar results in the acoustic analysis of pathological voices.