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 selfreported 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

Pitch Discrimination Testing in Patients with a Voice Disorder

Auditory perception plays an important role in voice control. Pitch discrimination (PD) is a key index of auditory perception and is influenced by a variety of factors. Little is known about the potential effects of voice disorders on PD and whether PD testing can differentiate people with and without a voice disorder. We thus evaluated PD in a voice-disordered group (n = 71) and a non-voice-disordered control group (n = 80). The voice disorders included muscle tension dysphonia and neurological voice disorders and all participants underwent PD testing as part of a comprehensive voice assessment. Percentage of accurate responses and PD threshold were compared across groups. The PD percentage accuracy was significantly lower in the voice-disordered group than the control group, irrespective of musical background. Participants with voice disorders also required a larger PD threshold to correctly discriminate pitch differences. The mean PD threshold significantly discriminated the voice-disordered groups from the control group. These results have implications for the voice control and pathogenesis of voice disorders. They support the inclusion of PD testing during comprehensive voice assessment and throughout the treatment process for patients with voice disorders.Education, Faculty ofNon UBCKinesiology, School ofReviewedFacultyResearcherOthe

Telehealth voice assessment by speech language pathologists during a global pandemic using principles of a primary contact model: an observational cohort study protocol

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2, a highly contagious severe acute respiratory syndrome, has spread to most countries in the world and resulted in a change to practice patterns for the assessment and diagnosis of people with voice disorders. Many services are transitioning to telehealth models to maintain physical distancing measures and conserve personal protective equipment used by healthcare workers during laryngoscopy examinations. The speech-language pathology primary contact (SLPPC) assessment for patients referred to ear, nose and throat (ENT) services in Australia has been shown to reduce waiting times for assessment while streamlining access to ENT assessment and allied health practitioner treatment pathways. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A prospective observational cohort study will see patients in a newly developed telehealth model which uses the principles from a usual care SLPPC assessment protocol. Participants will be offered an initial telehealth assessment (speech-language pathology primary contact telehealth (SLPPC-T)) prior to being prioritised for a face-to-face laryngoscopy assessment to complete the diagnostic process. The telehealth assessment will collect sociodemographic information, personal and family medical history, key symptoms, onset and variability of symptoms, red-flag signs or symptoms for laryngeal malignancy, and clinical voice assessment data for auditory-perceptual and acoustic analysis. The study outcomes include (1) association of signs, symptoms and specific voice measures collected during SLPPC-T with voice disorder classification provided after laryngoscopy; (2) degree of concordance between voice disorder classification after SLPPC-T and after laryngoscopy; (3) health service and patient-related costs and health outcomes of the SLPPC-T; (4) patient and stakeholder views and beliefs about the SLPPC-T process. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted prior to commencement of the study enrolment by the Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee (reference number HREC/2020/QGC/62832). Results will be shared through the publication of articles in peer-reviewed medical journals and presentation at national and international scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000427875