Geriatrik yaş popülasyonunun ses performansının objektif ve subjektif olarak değerlendirilmesi

Year 2020, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 26 - 30, 23.06.2020

Murat Kılıç , Doğan Atan

Abstract

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı geriatrik popülasyonun ses
performansının kontrol grubu ile karşılaştırılarak yaşın ses üzerine etkisini
ortaya koymaktır.

Gereç ve yöntemler: Çalışmamızda geriatrik gruba (>65 yaş) 34 birey
dahil edilirken, kontrol grubuna (<65 yaş) 35 birey alınmıştır. Her iki
grubun ses performansı objektif ve subjektif olarak değerlendirilmiştir.
Objektif değerlendirme için akustik ses analizi (F0, jitter % ve shimmer %) yapılırken,
subjektif değerlendirme amacıyla Voice Handicap Index-30 anketi kullanılmıştır.
Her iki grup F0, jitter %, shimmer % ve VHI-30 parametreleri açısından ayrı
ayrı istatistiksel olarak karşılaştırılmıştır.

Bulgular: Geriatrik grupta F0 ortalama değeri 186.14±43.13
iken, kontrol grubunda 160.74±25.76 olarak bulunmuştur ve fark istatistiksel
olarak anlamlıdır (p= 0.004). Geriatrik grupta jitter % ortalama değeri
0.61±0.34 olarak hesaplanırken, kontrol grubunda 0.68±0.34 olarak
hesaplanmıştır. Fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değildir (p= 0.417).
Geriatrik grupta shimmer % ortalama değeri 0.70±0.27 iken, kontrol grubunda
1.03±0.47 olarak bulunmuştur ve fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır (p=
0.001). VHI-30 parametresi ortalama değeri geriatrik grupta 10.85±4.11 iken,
kontrol grubunda 1.37±2.45 olarak bulunmuştur ve fark istatistiksel olarak
anlamlıdır (p< 0.001).

Sonuç: Geriatrik popülasyonda ses performansı
subjektif değerlendirme sonucu kontrol grubuna göre daha kötü olduğu, buna
karşılık objektif değerlendirme parametrelerinin ise daha iyi olduğu tespit
edilmiştir. Subjektif ve objektif ses değerlendirmesinin korele olmadığı
görülmüştür. Bu konuda yeni çalışmalara ihtiyaç
vardır. 

Keywords

Geriatri, larenks, ses

Supporting Institution

yok

Project Number

yok

Thanks

yok

Objective and Subjective Analysis of Voice Performance In The Geriatric Population

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the
effect of ageing on voice by comparing geriatric subjects with a control group.

Materials
and methods: The geriatric group (> 65 years of age)
included 34, and the control group included 35 subjects. Objective and
subjective analysis of voice were performed in both groups. Acoustic voice
analysis (F₀, jitter % and shimmer %) was done for objective
analysis, and VHI -30 questionnaire was used for subjective analysis. The
groups were compared for F₀, jitter %, shimmer % and VHI-30 scores.

Results:
Mean F₀ was 186.14±43.13 in the geriatric
group, and 160.74±25.76 in the control group, with a statistically significant
difference in between (p= 0.004). Mean jitter % were 0.61±0.34 and 0.68±0.34 in
the geriatric and the control groups, respectively (p= 0.417). Mean shimmer %
was found as 0.70±0.27 in geriatric, and 1.03±0.47 in the control groups, and
the difference between two groups was statistically significant (p= 0.001).
Mean VHI -30 score was 10.85±4.11 in geriatric subjects, and 1.37±2.45 in the
controls, and the difference was statistically significant (p< 0.001).

Conclusion: Subjective voice analysis showed that voice performance was deteriorated
in geriatric population compared to the controls. However, objective parameters
of the geriatric patients were better than the controls. Further studies on
larger groups are needed to further clarify this subject

Keywords

Geriatry, larynx, voice

Project Number

yok

References

• 1. Han D, Xu W, Hu R, Zhang L. Voice function following Han's uvulopalatopharyngoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 2012;126:47-51.
• 2. Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, et al; Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS). A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Guideline elaborated by the Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2001;258:77-82.
• 3. Hogikyan ND, Sethuraman G. Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL). J Voice 1999;13:557-69.
• 4. Jacobson BH, Johnson A, Grywalski C, et al. The voice handicap index (VHI) development and validation. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 1997;6:66-70.
• 5. Baken RJ. The aged voice: a new hypothesis. J Voice 2005;19:317-25.
• 6. Koufman JA, Isaacson G. Voice disorders. The Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America 1991;24:1120-1.
• 7. Ward PH, Colton R, McConnell F, Malmgren L, Kashima H, Woodson G. Aging of the voice and swallowing. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1989;100:283-6.
• 8. Atan D, Ozcan KM, Ikincioğulları A, Köseoğlu S, Çetin MA, Ensari S, et al. The effect of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and continuous positive airway pressure treatment on voice performance. Sleep Breath 2015;19:777-82.
• 9. Ringel RL, Chodako-Zajko WJ. Vocal indices of biological age. Journal of Voice 1987;1:31-7.
• 10. Gregory ND, Chandran S, Lurie D, Sataloff RT. Voice disorders in the elderly. J Voice 2012;26:254-8.
• 11. Thomas G, Mathews SS, Chrysolyte SB, Rupa V. Outcome analysis of benign vocal cord lesions by videostroboscopy, acoustic analysis and voice handicap index. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;59:336-40.
• 12. Hsiung MW, Pai L, Wang HW. Correlation between voice handicap index and voice laboratory measurements in dysphonic patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2002;259:97-9.
• 13. Wheeler KM, Collins SP, Sapienza CM. The relationship between VHI scores and specific acoustic measures of mildly disordered voice production. J Voice 2006;20:308-17.