Document Type : Literature Reviews


1 Department of speech therapy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences

2 Department of speech therapy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of speech therapy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran Iran,


Recent years have seen the development of voice indices for multi-parametric objective voice evaluation. The current study aims to review these indices and examine their efficiency through the literature.
Methods: The study design is a literature review. The five databases of ‘PubMed’, ‘Scopus’, ‘Google Scholar’, ‘Science Direct’, and ‘Web of Science’ were searched using the keywords ‘voice index’, ‘acoustic’, ‘voice assessment’, and ‘acoustic analysis’. Attempts were made to include only the acoustic indices that have been validated and are fairly user-friendly.
Results: Five voice indices were found that met the inclusion criteria: Dysphonia Severity Index (DSI), Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI), Cepstral Spectral Index of Dysphonia (CSID), The Acoustic Breathiness Index (ABI), and Acoustic Psychometric Severity Index of Dysphonia (APSID).
Conclusions: The results suggest using AVQI, ABI, DSI, and CSID in the evaluation and treatment of voice disorders. Of course, it is recommend to examine the efficacy of these indices in more languages and also developing new indices by considering more aspects of voice.


1. Boone DR, McFarlane SC, Berg SLV. The voice and voice therapy:Pearson Education; 2014.
2. Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, Cornut G, Crevier-Buchman L, Friedrich G, et al. A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2001;258(2):77-82.
3. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Precoda K. Listener experience and perception of voice quality. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1990;33(1):103-15.
4. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Precoda K, Berke GS. Individual differences in voice quality perception. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1992;35(3):512-20.
5. Dejonckere P, Obbens C, De Moor G, Wieneke G. Perceptual evaluation of dysphonia: reliability and relevance. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 1993;45(2):76-83.
6. Rabinov CR, Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Bielamowicz S. Comparing reliability of perceptual ratings of roughness and acoustic measures of jitter. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1995;38(1):26-32.
7. De Bodt MS, Wuyts FL, Van de Heyning PH, Croux C. Testretest study of the GRBAS scale: i nfluence of experience and professional background on perceptual rating of voice quality. JVoice. 1997;11(1):74-80.
8. Wuyts FL, De Bodt MS, Van de Heyning PH. Is the reliability of a visual analog scale higher than an ordinal scale? An experiment with the GRBAS scale for the perceptual evaluation of dysphonia.J Voice. 1999;13(4):508-17.
9. Wolfe VI, Martin DP, Palmer CI. Perception of dysphonic voice quality by naive listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43(3):697-705.
10. Eadie TL, Doyle PC. Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of pleasantness and severity in dysphonic and normal speakers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;112(6):3014-21.
11. Yu P, Revis J, Wuyts FL, Zanaret M, Giovanni A. Correlation of instrumental voice evaluation with perceptual voice analysis using a modified visual analog scale. Folia Phoniatr Logop.2002;54(6):271-81.
12. Zraick RI, Wendel K, Smith-Olinde L. The effect of speaking task on perceptual judgment of the severity of dysphonic voice.J Voice. 2005;19(4):574-81.
13. Eadie TL, Baylor CR. The effect of perceptual training on inexperienced listeners’ judgments of dysphonic voice. J Voice.2006;20(4):527-44.
14. Karnell MP, Melton SD, Childes JM, Coleman TC, Dailey SA,Hoffman HT. Reliability of clinician-based (GRBAS and CAPE-V)and patient-based (V-RQOL and IPVI)documentation of voice disorders. J Voice. 2007;21(5):576-90.
15. Maryn Y, Corthals P, Van Cauwenberge P, Roy N, De Bodt M.Toward improved ecological validity in the acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: combining continuous speech and sustained vowels. J Voice. 2010;24(5):540-55.
16. Parsa V, Jamieson DG. Acoustic discrimination of pathological voice: sustained vowels versus continuous speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001;44(2):327-39.
17. Roy N, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Eadie T, Sivasankar MP, Mehta D, Paul D, et al. Evidence-based clinical voice assessment: asystematic review. Am J Speech Lang Pathol.2013;22(2):212-26.
18. Stemple JC, Roy N, Klaben BK. Clinical Voice Pathology Theory and Management: Plural Publishing; 2014.
19. Maryn Y, Roy N, De Bodt M, Van Cauwenberge P, Corthals P.Acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: A meta-analysis.The Journal of the J Acoust Soc Am.2009;126(5):2619-34.
20. Ma EP-M, Yiu EM-L. Multiparametric evaluation of dysphonic severity. J Voice. 2006;20(3):380-90.
21. Wuyts FL, Bodt MSD, Molenberghs G, Remacle M, Heylen L,Millet B, et al. The dysphonia severity index: an objective measure of vocal quality based on a multiparameter approach. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43(3):796-809.
22. Awan SN, Roy N. Toward the development of an objective index of dysphonia severity: a four‐factor acoustic model. Clin Linguist Phon. 2006;20(1):35-49.
23. Yu P, Ouaknine M, Revis J, Giovanni A. Objective voice analysis for dysphonic patients: a multiparametric protocol including acoustic and aerodynamic measurements. JVoice.2001;15(4):529-42.
24. Keys A, Fidanza F, Karvonen MJ, Kimura N, Taylor HL. Indices of relative weight and obesity. Journal of chronic diseases.1972;25(6-7):329-43.
25. Blackburn H, Jacobs Jr D. Commentary: Origins and evolution of body mass index (BMI): continuing saga. Int J Epidemiol.2014;43(3):665-9.
26. Sobol M, Sielska-Badurek EM. The Dysphonia Severity Index (DSI)—Normative Values. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.J Voice. 2020;36(1):143.e9-143.e13.
27. Maryn Y, De Bodt M, Barsties B, Roy N. The value of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index as a measure of dysphonia severity in subjects speaking different languages. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol.2014;271(6):1609-19.
28. Latoszek BBv, Lehnert B, Janotte B. Validation of the acoustic voice quality index version 03.01 and acoustic breathiness index in German. J Voice. 2020;34(1):157. e17-. e25.
29. Kankare E, Barsties V. Latoszek B, Maryn Y, Asikainen M,Rorarius E, Vilpas S, et al. The acoustic voice quality index version 02.02 in the Finnish-speaking population. Logop. Phoniatr Vocology. 2020;45(2):49-56.
30. Pebbili GK, Shabnam S, Pushpavathi M, Rashmi J, Sankar RG,Nethra R, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Acoustic Voice Quality Index Version 02.03 in Discriminating across the Perceptual Degrees of Dysphonia Severity in Kannada Language. J Voice.2019;35(1):159.e11-159.e18.
31. Kim G-H, Lee Y-W, Bae I-H, Park H-J, Wang S-G, Kwon S-B.Validation of the acoustic voice quality index in the Korean language. J Voice. 2019;33(6):948. e1-. e9.
32. Englert M, Latoszek BBv, Maryn Y, Behlau M. Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index, Version 03.01, to the Brazilian Portuguese Language. J Voice.2019;35(1):160.e15-160.e21.
33. Pommée T, Maryn Y, Finck C, Morsomme D. Validation of the acoustic voice quality index, version 03.01, in French. J Voice.2018;34(4):646.e11-646.e26.
34. Delgado Hernandez J, León Gómez NM, Jiménez A, Izquierdo LM, Barsties v. Latoszek B. Validation of the acoustic voice quality index version 03.01 and the acoustic breathiness index in the Spanish language. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2018;127(5):317-26.
35. Uloza V, Petrauskas T, Padervinskis E, Ulozaitė N, Barsties B,Maryn Y. Validation of the acoustic voice quality index in the Lithuanian language. J Voice. 2017;31(2):257. e1-.e11.
36. Hosokawa K, Barsties B, Iwahashi T, Iwahashi M, Kato C, Iwaki S,et al. Validation of the acoustic voice quality index in the Japanese language. J Voice. 2017;31(2):260. e1-. e9.
37. Yeşilli-Puzella G, Tadıhan-Özkan E, Maryn Y. Validation and Test-Retest Reliability of Acoustic Voice Quality Index Version 02.06 in the Turkish Language. J Voice.2020;36(5):736.e25-736.e32.
38. Awan SN, Roy N, Jetté ME, Meltzner GS, Hillman RE.Quantifying dysphonia severity using a spectral/cepstral-based acoustic index: comparisons with auditory-perceptual judgements from the CAPE-V. Clin Linguist Phon. 2010;24(9):742-58.
39. Awan SN, Roy N, Dromey C. Estimating dysphonia severity in continuous speech: application of a multi-parameter spectral/cepstral model. Clin Linguist Phon.2009;23(11):825-41.
40. Awan SN, Roy N. Acoustic prediction of voice type in women with functional dysphonia. J Voice. 2005;19(2):268-82.
41. Peterson EA, Roy N, Awan SN, Merrill RM, Banks R, Tanner K. Toward validation of the cepstral spectral index of dysphonia (CSID) as an objective treatment outcomes measure. J Voice.2013;27(4):401-10.
42. Awan SN, Roy N, Zhang D, Cohen SM. Validation of the cepstral spectral index of dysphonia (CSID) as a screening tool for voice disorders: development of clinical cutoff scores. J Voice.2016;30(2):130-44.
43. Dejonckere P, Lebacq J. Harmonic emergence in formant zone of a sustained [a] as a parameter for evaluating hoarseness. ActaOtorhinolaryngol Belg. 1987;41(6):988-96.
44. Latoszek BBv, Maryn Y, Gerrits E, De Bodt M. The Acoustic Breathiness Index (ABI): a multivariate acoustic model for breathiness. J Voice. 2017;31(4):511. e11-. e27.
45. Latoszek BBV, Kim G-H, Hernández JD, Hosokawa K, Englert M, Neumann K, et al. The validity of the Acoustic Breathiness Index in the evaluation of breathy voice quality: A Meta-Analysis.Clin Otolaryngol. 2020;46(1):31-40.
46. Lee SJ, Choi H-S, Kim H. Acoustic Psychometric Severity Index of Dysphonia (APSID): Development and Clinical Application. JVoice. 2019;35(4):660.e19-660.e25.