SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A comparative study of automatic vowel articulation index and auditory-perceptual assessments of speech intelligibility in Parkinson's disease.

Int J Speech Lang Pathol · 2023-10-06

DOI: 10.1080/17549507.2023.2251725PMID: 37800979

Check source for accessComparative Study; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to analyse the relationship between automatic vowel articulation index (aVAI) and direct magnitude estimation (DME) among speakers with Parkinson's disease (PD) and healthy controls. We further analysed the potential of aVAI to serve as an objective measure of speech impairment in the clinical setting.MethodSpeech samples from native Finnish speakers were utilised. Expert raters utilised DME to scale the intelligibility of speech samples. aVAI scores for PD speakers and healthy control speakers were analysed in relationship to DME speech intelligibility ratings and, among PD speakers, disease stage utilising nonparametric statistical analysis.ResultMean DME intelligibility ratings were lower among PD speakers compared to healthy controls. Mean aVAI scores were nearly the same between speaker groups. DME intelligibility ratings and aVAI were strongly correlated within the PD speaker group. aVAI and DME intelligibility ratings were moderately correlated with disease stage as measured by the Hoehn and Yahr scale.ConclusionaVAI was observed to be a promising tool for analysing vowel articulation in PD speakers. Further research is warranted on the application of aVAI as an objective measure of severity of speech impairment in the clinical setting, with varying patient populations and speech samples.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.