PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of a newly developed software, the Automatic RFF Calculator (ARC), in measuring relative fundamental frequency (RFF) compared to current semi-automated RFF estimation algorithms (aRFF). To gain a better understanding of how ARC might fit into clinical voice evaluations, the general structure of voice evaluations across clinicians was investigated in addition to their opinions on the use of acoustic assessment as well. Furthermore, the study sought clinician feedback on improvements to ARC that would make it more applicable to the clinical setting.
METHOD: The first research question was assessed by comparing the effect sizes of RFF values calculated via ARC with those calculated by aRFF. To address the remaining research questions, one-on-one interviews with clinicians were conducted during which they were probed specifically for their assessment of strain and vocal effort as well as their opinions on the benefits and barriers of using acoustic measures in the voice evaluation process. Additionally, during the interviews, the clinicians were introduced to ARC and RFF and then prompted to share their opinions on which features of ARC they enjoyed as well as features they thought should be added or adjusted.
RESULTS: This study found that there were no statistically significant differences between the effect sizes calculated via ARC and aRFF. Additionally, the clinicians provided useful feedback on improvements to be made to ARC to increase its clinical utility. Most clinicians who already include acoustic assessment in their voice evaluations were willing to incorporate ARC and RFF into their clinical protocol, whereas those who do not use acoustic assessment were less willing to use the measure. Across interviews, clinicians reported a desire to see more research surrounding the clinical utility of ARC and RFF.
CONCLUSION: The quantitative results suggests that RFF estimation via ARC is as accurate as the current semi-automated estimation method. These results implicate ARC as a useful clinical tool as an acoustic correlate of vocal strain and/or effort. The feedback gleaned from the clinician interviews is beneficial in directing the future development of ARC.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bu.edu/oai:open.bu.edu:2144/48764 |
| Date | 15 May 2024 |
| Creators | Madoule, Michael D. |
| Contributors | Stepp, Cara E. |
| Source Sets | Boston University |
| Language | en_US |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis/Dissertation |
Page generated in 0.0179 seconds