3. differential diagnosis mtd vs sd
TRANSCRIPT
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 1/61
Muscle Tension Dysphonia vs. Spasmodic Dysphonia:
An Evidence-Based Approach
Nelson Roy Ph.D.,CCC-SLP, F-ASHA
Department of Communication Sciences DisordersDivision of Otolaryngology-Head Neck Surgery
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 2/61
Spasmodic Dysphonia (SD)
and Muscle Tension Dysphonia (MTD)
– Two enigmatic voice disorders that produce disordered
laryngeal movements and often incapacitating dysphonias
– Presumed to have very different origins and treatments
– Accurate differential diagnosis is essential for timely and
optimal management
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 3/61
The Spasmodic Dysphonias (SDs)
• Neurogenic—adult onset, action-induced, “task-specific ortask-dependent”, focal dystonia
– Adductor SD (ADSD)- voice breaks in vowels (strained-strangledvoice quality)
–
Abductor SD (ABSD)- prolonged voiceless consonants (breathyvoice quality)
– Mixed (ADSD/ABSD)
– +/- Tremor
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 4/61
Muscle Tension Dysphonia?
• A functional voice disorder that can mimic the perceptualfeatures of the SDs
• Recurrent feature in all descriptions is laryngeal andextralaryngeal hyperfunction
• Multiple sources of dysregulated muscle activity – Psychological and/or personality factors that tend to induce tension
– Technical misuses of the vocal mechanism
– Learned adaptations following URI
– Compensation for minor underlying vocal fold pathology
– Increased laryngeal tone secondary to LPR
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 5/61
SD vs. MTD:A Source of Confusion
• Differential diagnosis of SD continues to be based primarilyupon auditory-perceptual assessment
• MTD can mimic the perceptual attributes of the SDs
• Potential for misdiagnosis & inappropriate (needless,wasteful) behavioral, medical, or surgical interventions
• Video examples: SD vs. MTD?
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 6/61
Toward Improved Differential Diagnosis
• An improved understanding of the differences between the SDs and MTD is
necessary to reduce diagnostic confusion and improve management outcomes.
• U of Utah Program of Research (ADSD vs. MTD).
• Many assertions exist regarding features considered characteristic or definitive
of ADSD (e.g. task-specific/dependent, phonatory breaks, falsetto, singing).
• Most of these assertions have not been tested, nor has it been determined
whether MTD behaves in a similar manner (or shares the same features as
ADSD).
• Assertion-based vs. Evidence-based practice in differential diagnosis.
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 7/61
Assertion # 1:
Task “Specificity”/ “Dependency” in ADSD?
• ADSD has been described as “Task specific” or “Task Dependent”
• Task Dependency in ADSD…The severity of symptoms (i.e., degree of dysphonia, number of voice
breaks, degree of strain) will vary according to the demands of the vocal task.
• Diagnosis of ADSD often requires some evidence of voice improvement with…
– (1) Emotional vocalization (laughing, crying)
– (2) Falsetto or Singing
– (3) Sustained Vowels
– (4) Phonetic Context (Voiceless-laden words/sentences better).
• Two research studies to evaluate the diagnostic value of task-dependency as a means to distinguish
ADSD vs. MTD
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 8/61
ADSD: Task dependency & phonetic context
• Task dependency in ADSD…
– Sentences loaded with voiced segments (& lots of vowels) will
provoke (worsen) symptoms (i.e., more strain, voice breaks).
–Sentences loaded with voiceless segments will decrease symptoms
(i.e., improved performance…less strain, voice breaks).
– Voiced consonants (worse) vs. voiceless consonants (better).
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 9/61
Examples of “Voiced” (Voice ON) vs.
“Voiceless” (Voice OFF) Distinction
• Voiced Consonants
– Stops /b, d, g/
–
Fricatives /v,z, zh/ – Affricates /dz/
– Glides & liquids /w, r, l, j/
• Voiceless Consonants
– Stops /p, t, k/
–
Fricatives /f, s, sh, h/ – Affricates /ch/
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 10/61
Task Specificity- (ADSD)
• Sentences with all voiced consonants provoke moresymptoms (i.e, poorer voice with this phonetic context).
– Early one morning a man and a woman were ambling along a onemile lane running near rainy island avenue (Dedo & Shipp, 1980).
• Sentences with mostly voiceless consonants provoke fewersymptoms (i.e, better voice with this phonetic context).
– He saw half a shape mystically cross fifty or sixty steps in front ofhis sister Kathy’s house.
• (N.B. reverse pattern for ABSD)
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 11/61
ADSD vs. MTD: Is task-dependent sign expression
a distinguishing feature?
• Roy, N., Mauszycki, S.C., Merrill, R.M., Gouse, M. &
Smith, M. (2007).Toward improved differential
diagnosis of adductor spasmodic dysphonia and muscle
tension dysphonia. Folia phoniatrica et Logopedica,59(2), 83-90.
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 12/61
Participants• N = 29 ADSD (17 F, 12 M, mean 45.6 yrs)
– ADSD provisional diagnosis based on guidelines of Cannito& colleagues (Cannito & Kondraske, 1990; Cannito &Woodson, 2000)
• absence of perceptual symptoms of the classical dysarthrias,
• auditory-perceptual characteristics consistent with the disorder (evidence of phonatory breaks and a strained-strangled quality, and no obvious tremor during phonation),
• occasional moments of normal sounding voice,
•
improved voice for non-speech vocalizations,• improved voice quality for phonation at high pitch.
– no v.f. lesions
– No prior Botox at time of audiorecordings
– Therapy failure & subsequent positive response to Botox
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 13/61
Participants
• N = 33 MTD (28 F, 5 M, mean 46.9 yrs) – Myriad voice qualities (dyphonia not aphonia)
– No v.f. lesions
– Pain/discomfort upon palpation, stiff hyo-laryngeal sling,
elevated larynx (narrow T.H. space).
– Sustained positive response to voice therapy
(corroborated Dx).
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 14/61
Methods• Voice Stimuli (order randomized within & acrosss
subjects):• Early one morning a man and a woman were ambling along a one-
mile lane running near Rainy Island Avenue.
• He saw half a shape mystically cross fifty or sixty steps in front ofhis sister Kathy’s house.
• 5 graduate SLP students rated dysphonia severity
• 10 cm visual analog scale (VAS)
A. Normal Voice
B. Normal Voice
Profoundly
Abnormal VoicProfoundly
Abnormal Voic
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 15/61
Visual Analog Scale
1. Voiced Sentence
2. Voiceless Sentence
Normal VoiceProfoundly
Abnormal Voic
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 16/61
Measurement of Visual Analog Scale
VAS scale = 10 cm in length
Normal Voice Profoundly
Abnormal Voice
Based upon location of vertical mark, thissample receives a score of 7 cm
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 17/61
Dysphonia Severity: Voiced vs. Voiceless Sentences
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ADSD MTD
M e a n D y s p h o n
i a S e v e r i t y ( c m
Voiced
Voiceless
* p <.0001
p = .740 Note:
Baseline
Equivalence
on All-voiced
Sentence
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 18/61
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Mean Severity (All Voiced)
M e a n S e v
e r i t y ( V o i c e l e s s )
ADSD
MTD
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 19/61
Task-Specificity as a Diagnostic Marker: Sensitivity &
Specificity
• Sensitivity: proportion of correctly identified cases (ADSD subjects)
• Specificity: proportion of correctly identified non-cases (MTD
subjects).
• Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve generated using the
variable cutoff criterion to determine a case.
• E.g., 1 cm cutoff required voiceless sentence to be rated at least 1 cm
less severe than rating for voiced sentence.
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 20/61
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 21/61
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1-Specificity
S e n s i t i v i t y
4 cm
3 cm
2 cm
1 cm
0 cm
-1 cm
Sensitivity = % of correctly classified ADSD casesSpecificity = % of correctly classified MTD cases
1-Specificity = % of false positives (i.e., MTD’s incorrectly classified as ADSD)
“False Positives”
Worthless Test
Best
PossibleTest
Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC)
Curve
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 22/61
Conclusions
•
ADSD is “fairly” task-specific (>1 cm) (48% sensitivity)• MTD is not task-specific (88% to 100% specificity, as size of
difference increases 1 cm to 4 cm)
• Clinical Implications: –
If don’t observe task-specificity, can’t rule out ADSD (look for otherconfirmatory signs/symptoms).
– But, if observe task-specificity (1) likely ADSD, (2) can rule out MTD,especially as size of difference increases.
– Clinicians must survey/employ specific voice stimuli duringdiagnostic session, otherwise miss important distinguishing features
(i.e., task-specificity).
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 23/61
Further Research on Task-Specificity in ADSD and
MTD
Assertion # 2:• In ADSD, the dysphonia during sustained vowel production (i.e., vowel
prolongation) is less severe (normal?) as compared to connected speech.
• Sustained Vowels vs. Connected Speech?
• Roy, N., Gouse, M., Mauszycki, S., Merrill, R., & Smith, M.(2005). Task-specificity in adductor spasmodic dysphoniaversus muscle tension dysphonia. The Laryngoscope, 115(2), 311-316.
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 24/61
Participants
• ADSD (n=36)• MTD (n=45)
• Same criteria for inclusion as previous study.
•Subjects recorded producing either connectedspeech- Rainbow Passage (Fairbanks, 1960) or a
sustained vowel “ah”.
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 25/61
Methods
• Voice Stimuli (order randomized within & acrosss
subjects):
• Sustained Vowel “ah” (three seconds)
• “these take the shape of a long round arch with its path high
above, and its two ends apparently beyond the horizon”.
• 5 graduate SLP students rated dysphonia severity
• 10 cm visual analog scale (VAS)
A. Normal Voice
B. Normal Voice
Profoundly
Abnormal VoicProfoundly
Abnormal Voic
k f
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 26/61
Task Specificity?
Sustained Vowels vs. Connected Speech
0
2
4
6
8
10
MTD ADSD
M e a n D y s p h o n i a S e v e r i t y ( c m ) Connected Speech
Sustained Vowel
p =.001**p =.707 Baseline
Equivalence
on C.S.
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 27/61
Conclusions
•
ADSD is “fairly” task-specific (>1 cm) (53% sensitivity)• MTD is not task-specific (76% to 93% specificity, as size
of difference between sustained vowel and connectedspeech increases from 1 cm to 4 cm)
• Clinical Implications:
– If don’t observe task-specificity, can’t rule out ADSD
– But, if observe task-specificity (1) likely ADSD, (2) as size ofdifference increases between sustained vowel and connectedspeech, very unlikely that it is MTD.
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 28/61
Assertion #3
• Response to lidocaine block of the RLN predictsresponse to subsequent RLN sectioning (Dedo,
1976), and confirms/corroborates the diagnosis of
ADSD.
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 29/61
Lidocaine Block of the RLN?
• Dedo (1976) offered presurgicalRLN Block in ADSD as a means todetermine surgical candidacy, andto predict possible response to RLNsection. A positive response to RLNBlock was advocated as a necessaryprerequisite to RLN sectioning.
• We reasoned that a positiveresponse to lidocaine block of theRLN in ADSD might offer promise as
a potential diagnostic test, not topredict response to RLN sectioning,but to distinguish ADSD from MTD.
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 30/61
Roy, N., Smith, M.E., Allen, B., Merrill, R. (2007). Adductor spasmodicdysphonia versus muscle tension dysphonia: Examining the diagnostic
value of recurrent laryngeal nerve lidocaine block. Annals of Otology,Rhinology, and Laryngology , 116(3), 161-168
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 31/61
Participants
•
N = 23 ADSD (14 F, 9 M; M=44.8 yrs, SD=12.6) – ADSD provisional diagnosis based on guidelines of
Cannito & colleagues (Cannito & Kondraske, 1990;Cannito & Woodson, 2000)
–
No tremor, no v.f. lesions – No prior Botox at time of audiorecordings
– Therapy failure & subsequent positive response to Botox
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 32/61
Participants
•N = 20 MTD (16 F, 4 M; M=43.6 yrs, SD=15.9) – No v.f. lesions
– Pain/discomfort upon palpation, stiff hyo-laryngeal sling,
elevated larynx (narrow T.H. space).
– Sustained positive response to voice therapy
(corroborated Dx).
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 33/61
Procedures(1) Participant audiorecorded reading the sentence… “Early one morning
a man and a woman were ambling along a one-mile lane running nearRainy Island Avenue” (Dedo & Shipp, 1980).
(2) Participant self-rated voice on three parameters (overall severity,
vocal effort, laryngeal tightness using a 10-point equal appearing
interval scale, 1= no problem, and 10= extreme problem).
(3) Participant then underwent RLN lidocaine block procedure (2.5- 5 cc’sof 1% lidocaine deposited in right neck using a 27 gauge needle;
complete R. vocal fold immobility was confirmed laryngoscopically).
(4) During the RLN block condition the participant’s voice was re-
recorded and self-ratings re-administered.
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 34/61
Lidocaine Block of the RLN
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 35/61
Results- Patient-Based Ratings (Pre vs. During
OVERALL SEVERITY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ADSD MTD
Group
S e v e r i t y
Pre Block
During Block
p <.002 p <.034
OVERALL EFFORT LEVEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ADSD MTD
Group
S e v e r i t y
Pre Block
During Block
p <.0001 p <.020
LARYNGEAL TIGHTNESS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ADSD MTD
Group
S e v e r i t y
Pre Block
During Block
p <.0001 p <.006
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 36/61
Methods: Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of
Audiorecordings
• Sentence Stimuli (order randomized across & within subjects, andpre/during block presented as a set):
– Early one morning a man and a woman were ambling along a one- mile lanerunning near Rainy Island Avenue
• 6 blinded, graduate SLP students rated pre/during block samples
• 10 cm visual analog scales (VAS) – (1) overall dysphonia severity,
– (2) breathiness,
– (3) strain
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 37/61
Visual Analog Scale (Pre/During Block)
No Breathiness
Normal VoiceExtremely
Abnormal Vo
Extreme
Strain No Strain
Extreme
Breathine
Listener Ratings (Pre vs During Block)
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 38/61
Listener Ratings (Pre vs. During Block)
OVERALL SEVERITY
0
20
40
60
80
100
ADSD MTD
Group
S e v e r i t y
Pre Block
During Block
p <.013 p =.338
BREATHINESS
0
20
40
60
80
100
ADSD MTD
Group
S e v e r i t y
Pre Block
During Block
p <.002 p =.178
STRAIN
0
20
40
60
80
100
ADSD MTD
Group
S e v e r i t y
Pre Block
During Block
p <.0001 p <.003
Positive response to RLN Block as a Diagnostic Marker:
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 39/61
Positive response to RLN Block as a Diagnostic Marker:
Sensitivity & Specificity
•
Sensitivity: proportion of correctly identified cases (ADSD subjects)
• Specificity: proportion of correctly identified non-cases (MTDsubjects).
• Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve generated using thevariable cutoff criterion to determine a case.
• E.g., 1 cm cutoff required during block sample to be rated at least 1 cmless severe than rating for pre-block sample.
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 40/61
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 41/61
ROC Curves
OVERALL SEVERITY
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
1-Specificity
S e n s i t i v
i t y
>1cm
>3cm
>2cm
>4cm
>5cm
BREATHINESS
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
1-Specificity
S e n s i t i v i t y
>1cm
>2cm
>3cm
>4cm
>5cm
STRAIN
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
1-Specificity
S e n s i t i v i t y
>1cm
>2cm
>3cm
>4cm
>5cm
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 42/61
Conclusions
•
Both ADSD and MTD respond favorably to RLN Block.• Estimates of Sensitivity and Specificity, and ROC plots
confirm that positive response to RLN block is a poor(i.e., worthless) diagnostic test, and should not be usedas a means to distinguish ADSD from MTD (Dedo,
1976?).• Important for clinicians (ENTs, SLPs, Neurologists) to
know the precision or imprecision of the tests they use,avoid misdiagnosis!!!
A ti #4
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 43/61
Assertion #4
• Phonatory Breaks are the sine qua non of ADSD (Sapienza,
Walton, & Murry, 2000; Rees, Blalock et al., 2008; Ludlow,
1995)
All-voiced sentence- ADSD
R h Q ti
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 44/61
Research Questions
•
Do subjects with ADSD and MTD demonstrateacoustic evidence of phonatory breaks?
• Are phonatory breaks specific to ADSD?
• Using conventional estimates of diagnostic precision,
what is the clinical utility of phonatory break
analysis as a diagnostic test to distinguish ADSD from
MTD?
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 45/61
Acoustic Analysis
• Phonatory Breaks (ADSD vs. MTD) – Frequency, duration?
“Mile”
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 46/61
• Roy, N., Whitchurch, M., Merrill, R., Houtz,
D., Smith, M. (2008). Differential diagnosis of
adductor spasmodic dysphonia and muscle
tension dysphonia using phonatory break
analysis. The Laryngoscope, 118(12), 2245-
2253.
Participants
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 47/61
Participants
•
41 subjects with ADSD (19 males, m = 47.42 years,SD = 11.96 years; 22 females, m = 50.00, SD = 13.99).
• 59 subjects with MTD (10 males, mean age
[m] = 49.20 years, standard deviation [SD] = 15.94
years; 49 females, m = 48.47, SD = 15.76)
Procedures
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 48/61
ProceduresVoice Stimuli• Each participant was recorded reading an all-voiced consonant sentence:
Early one morning a man and a woman were ambling along a one-milelane running near Rainy Island Avenue (Dedo & Shipp, 1980).
Phonatory Break Analysis•
the presence, frequency, and duration of any within-word phonatorybreaks were measured.
• A phonatory break consisted of a complete absence of phonation.
• The absolute duration of the phonatory break was measured inmilliseconds by marking the initiation of the break with the last clearpositive glottal pulse and termination of the phonatory break with the first
clear positive glottal pulse at the return of phonation.
Phonatory Breaks ADSD vs MTD?
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 49/61
Phonatory Breaks ADSD vs. MTD?
Initiation of phonatory break Termination of phonatory break
Initiation of phonatory break Termination of phonatory break
Phonatory break from a patient with ADSD on
the word ‘avenue’ measuring 256.33 ms
Phonatory break from a patient with MTD on the
word ‘avenue’ measuring 84.98 ms
General Results
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 50/61
General Results
• Both ADSD and MTD showed evidence ofphonatory breaks.
• Subjects with ADSD displayed significantly more
breaks than subjects with MTD.
• Information regarding both duration and number
of phonatory breaks improves diagnostic
precision
Results
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 51/61
Results
•
According to indices of diagnostic precision, patients withMTD (regardless of gender) will almost never have more
than four phonatory breaks in the single all-voiced sentence
(95% specificity).
• Women and men with MTD displayed different patterns.
• Men with MTD infrequently showed breaks, and never
showed acoustic evidence of 2 or more phonatory breaks
(regardless of duration).
Relationship among terms, and how each indicator of
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 52/61
Reference/Gold Standard
T e s t O u t c o m
e
“Have ADSD” “Have MTD”
Positive Test
(i.e., Evidence of Phonatory Breaks)
A
True positives
B
False Positives
Negative Test
(i.e., No evidence of Phonatory
Breaks)
C
False negatives
D
True negatives
•Sensitivity = A / (A + C)
•Specificity = D / (B + D)
•PV+ = A / (A + B)•PV – = D / (C + D)
•LR+ = sensitivity / (1 – specificit
•LR – = (1 – sensitivity) / specifici
diagnostic precision is calculated.
Conclusions re Phonatory Breaks
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 53/61
Conclusions re: Phonatory Breaks
•
Phonatory break analysis offers promise as a diagnostictest to distinguish ADSD from MTD, and is especially
useful in males.
• Information regarding “number” of phonatory breaks
improves diagnostic precision in both men and women.
• In the future, automated phonatory break analysis of an
all-voiced stimulus sentence, like the one used in this
study, could represent an important step toward
improved diagnostic precision.
Summary of the Evidence?: Distinguishing SD and MTD
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 54/61
Summary of the Evidence?: Distinguishing SD and MTD
• Little evidence of task specificity in MTD. – MTD’s sustained vowel often commensurate with connected
speech.
– No obvious difference between voiced and voiceless contexts
(All contexts difficult).
• Phonatory breaks occur in both ADSD and MTD, but
more frequent in ADSD (especially males).
• Lidocaine Block of the RLN is a worthless diagnostic test
ADSD…Task Specificity (More tasks)
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 55/61
ADSD…Task Specificity (More tasks)
• Compare repeated productions of /wi/ vs. /pi/, /ti/, /ki/. ADSD worse on /wi/ (i.e.,
more strain, effort, voice breaks). Improvement on syllable reps. with voicelessconsonants.
• Compare rapid “ah, ah, ah” vs. “hah, hah, hah”- ADSD improved on “hah”
• Counting “Eighty series”, e.g., eighty, eighty-one, eighty- two… eighty-nine (vowelonsets difficult).
• Sixty-series… (improved performance, less strain, effort as compared to 80’s).
• Pitch-glide: Low to high (Asymptomatic in highest pitches).
• Falsetto (Counting to ten): Asymptomatic/Improved compared to C.S. @NPNL.
• Singing Happy Birthday: Asymptomatic especially when sung in highest pitch.
• Whisper: Asymptomatic
• “Islands of Normal Speech” (few words)… free of strained-strangled quality… short-lived, transient… especially after spontaneous laugh.
Conclusions
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 56/61
Conclusions
• No single diagnostic test/marker.
• Important for clinicians to survey a variety of speechtasks to reveal/provoke task dependent signexpression
– Ensure proper diagnosis and selection of appropriatetreatments for both MTD and SD (subtypes).
• Future research to examine discriminatory value of:
– Falsetto, singing, palpation, and improved diagnosticprecision of combining multiple diagnostic markers?
Abductor SD (ABSD)
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 57/61
Abductor SD (ABSD)
•
Rare form (10% of laryngeal dystonia)• Abduction of vocal folds (devoicing gesture)
• Prolonged voiceless consonants (long VOT): difficultywith voice onset following voiceless sounds e.g. /h, s, f,p, t, k/. Especially noticeable when attempting to turn
voice on after “h” as in happy.• Breathy voice quality, ? normal vowels (except in very
severe cases).
• Whispering dysphonia (aphonia)… some debate re:psychogenic aphonia (severe MTD?).
Abductor SD: Task Specificity
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 58/61
Abductor SD: Task Specificity
•
Sentences with all voiced segments…observeimproved performance
– Early one morning a man and a woman were ambling
along a one mile lane running near Rainy Island
Avenue. – Albert eats eggs every Easter early in the a.m.
– We mow our lawn all year.
– We rode along Rhode Island Avenue.
Abductor SD- Task Specificity
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 59/61
Abductor SD Task Specificity
•
/Pi/, /ti/, and /ki/ worse than /wi/• “hah, hah, hah” worse than “ah, ah, ah”
• Sixty-series more difficult than eighty series.
• Like ADSD, all other voicing tasks are easier than
connected speech i.e., sustained vowels, falsetto,
singing, laughing.
• No pain
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 60/61
• SD vs. MTD… You
be the judge!
• Video Case
Examples.
References
8/13/2019 3. Differential Diagnosis MTD vs SD
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3-differential-diagnosis-mtd-vs-sd 61/61
• Roy, N. (2010). Differential diagnosis of muscle tension dysphonia and spasmodic dysphonia. Current Opinion in Otolaryngology-
Head and Neck Surgery , 19, 182-187.
•
Roy, N., Whitchurch, M., Merrill, R., Houtz, D., Smith, M. (2008). Differential diagnosis of adductor spasmodic dysphonia andmuscle tension dysphonia using phonatory break analysis. The Laryngoscope, 118(12):2245-53.
• Roy, N., Smith, M.E., Allen, B., Merrill, R. (2007). Adductor spasmodic dysphonia versus muscle tension dysphonia: Examining the
diagnostic value of recurrent laryngeal nerve lidocaine block. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology , 116(3), 161-168.
• Roy, N., Mauszycki, S.C., Merrill, R.M., Gouse, M. & Smith, M. (2007).Toward improved differential diagnosis of adductor
spasmodic dysphonia and muscle tension dysphonia. Folia phoniatrica et Logopedica, 59(2), 83-90.
• Smith, M.E., Roy, N., & Wilson, C. (2006). Lidocaine block of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in adductor spasmodic dysphonia: A
multidimensional assessment. The Laryngoscope, 116, 591-595.
• Roy, N., Gouse, M., Mauszycki, S., Merrill, R., & Smith, M. (2005). Task-specificity in adductor spasmodic dysphonia versus muscl
tension dysphonia. The Laryngoscope, 115 (2), 311-316. 47.
• Roy, N., Ford, C.N., Bless, D.M. (1996). Muscle tension dysphonia and spasmodic dysphonia: The role of manual laryngeal tensio
reduction in diagnosis and management. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology , 105 (11), 851-856.