Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
This paper investigated the performance of a number of acoustic measures, both individually and in combination, in predicting the perceived quality of sustained vowels produced by people impaired with Parkinson's disease (PD). Sustained vowel recordings were collected from 51 PD patients before and after the administration of the Levodopa medication. Subjective ratings of the overall vowel quality were garnered using a visual analog scale. These ratings served to benchmark the effectiveness of the acoustic measures. Acoustic predictors of the perceived vowel quality included the harmonics-to-noise ratio (HNR), smoothed cepstral peak prominence (CPP), recurrence period density entropy (RPDE), Gammatone frequency cepstral coefficients (GFCCs), linear prediction (LP) coefficients and their variants, and modulation spectrogram features. Linear regression (LR) and support vector regression (SVR) models were employed to assimilate multiple features. Different feature dimensionality reduction methods were investigated to avoid model overfitting and enhance the prediction capabilities for the test dataset. Results showed that the RPDE measure performed the best among all individual features, while a regression model incorporating a subset of features produced the best overall correlation of 0.80 between the predicted and actual vowel quality ratings. This model may therefore serve as a surrogate for auditory-perceptual assessment of Parkinsonian vowel quality. Furthermore, the model may offer the clinician a tool to predict who may benefit from Levodopa medication in terms of enhanced voice quality.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.