Results: Recent studies support the efficiency of CPP and CPPS to diagnose dysphonia.Ĭonclusion: It is reasonable for the voice care teams to use CPP and CPPS in the patients’ initial assessment and track the effects of treatment. However, the interventional studies that consider CPP and CPPS as one of their adjunct variables and studies that investigated the relationship of the cepstral measure with other parameters were not included. The articles that investigated the power of Cepstral Peak Prominence (CPP) and its smoothed version (CPPS) to differentiate dysphonia versus normal voice have been included. The searched keywords included “cepstral peak prominence”, “smoothed cepstral peak prominence”, “instrumental acoustic analysis”, “acoustic”, and “diagnosis”. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the available research studies between 20 narratively in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Science Direct databases. This review article evaluates the related studies in the cepstral areas to ascertain whether they are efficient in the diagnosis of dysphonia. In recent years, many studies have investigated the cepstral measures compared with the other former acoustic parameters.
Introduction: The acoustic analysis is one of the well-known methods for voice evaluation.
0 kommentar(er)
