A) Study subjects

1) Acoustic signals

Pathological voice samples were collected from a voice clinic in a tertiary teaching hospital (Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, FEMH, Taiwan). The database includes 589 samples of three common voice disorders, including phonotraumatic diseases (i.e. vocal nodules, polyps, and cysts), glottic neoplasm, and unilateral vocal paralysis (Tables 1 and 2). The clinical diagnosis of voice disorders is based on videolaryngostroboscopic examination [Reference Stachler13]. All patients received voice recordings of a sustained vowel /a:/ at a comfortable level of loudness, with a microphone-to-mouth distance of approximately 15−20 cms, using a unidirectional microphone and a digital amplifier (CSL model 4150B, Kay Pentax). The sampling rate was 44100 Hz with a 16-bit resolution, saved in the uncompressed.wav format.

Table 1.

FEMH data description.

Abbreviations: ♂, male; ♀, female.

Table 2.

Phonotrauma data description.

Abbreviations: ♂, male; ♀, female.

2) Medical record

Besides voice recordings, study subjects also completed a detailed questionnaire in Table 3 about demographic features (e.g., age and sex), duration (years and months), and onset of dysphonia, dysphonic symptoms, occupations (e.g., teacher, stage performer, and business), and occupational vocal demands (using a 4-point Likert scale with the following anchors: always, frequent, occasional, and minimal). Cigarette smoking was classified as active, past, and never. Alcohol consumption was classified as never, occasionally, weekly, and daily. Patients were instructed to self-rate their voice quality using a visual analog scale (VAS) with scores ranging from 0 (worst) to 10 (best) and fill out questionnaires with 10-item voice handicap index (VHI-10) and reflux symptom index (RSI) [Reference Aaltonen46–Reference Belafsky, Postma and Koufman48].

Table 3.

Medical records of demographics and symptoms feature retrieved from the FEMH database.

B) Feature extraction

C) Typical combination methods

D) Enhanced feature-based combination algorithm

Although the implementation of feature-based combination is straightforward, the key drawback of OSD is not fully considering the dynamic properties of different information sources. In fact, acoustic waves are rather dynamic compared with the medical record, creating difficulties in model learning. To overcome this limitation, this study proposes an enhanced feature-based combination algorithm, called HGD. In HGD, the acoustic signals are first modeled by a GMM, and then the means of the GMM are concatenated to form a supervector for feature combination instead of using MFCC+delta in OSD.

The basic principle for the GMM-based supervector is to represent a sequence of acoustic features with arbitrary length as a static long vector [Reference Bocklet, Haderlein, Hönig, Rosanowski and Nöth49]. This technique is a standard method and has been validated for speaker recognition tasks [Reference Reynolds, Quatieri and Dunn50]. GMM-based supervector extraction involves two steps. First, one must train the GMM-universal background model (UBM) using a dedicated data set. The training process in this step is performed in an unsupervised manner and does not require classification labels. Then, each utterance is used to adapt the GMM-UBM to generate an utterance-specific GMM. Finally, a supervector is formed by concatenating the mean vectors into a higher-dimensional vector; for instance, by stacking d-dimensional mean vectors of a M-component adapted GMM into a M * d-dimensional GMM-based supervector [Reference Campbell, Sturim and Reynolds51,Reference Kinnunen and Li52].

Figure 1 shows the architecture of the proposed HGD framework. In this framework, a GMM-UBM is first trained based on the entire data set. Then, acoustic features for each utterance were used to adjust the mean parameters of the GMM-UBM. The adjusted mean parameters are concatenated to form a supervector. The size of a supervector is determined by the number of GMM-UBM. Then, a DNN fuses the supervector and medical records to perform classification.

Fig. 1.

The block diagram of the proposed HGD framework.

E) Enhanced model-based combination algorithm

To further improve the performance of DLC, we proposed an enhanced model-based combination algorithm referred to as two-stage DNN (TSD). In contrast with DLC, another deep learning model is used as the fusion module to combine the outputs of the DNNs in order to characterize the joint effects of separate modalities, namely, acoustic signals and medical records in this study, more accurately. The architecture of the TSD framework is shown in Fig. 2. It can be divided into two stages. In the first stage, two DNNs (referred to as first-stage DNNs) are used to process acoustic signals and medical records individually. Each of the two first-stage DNNs generates a three-dimensional output vector indicating the probability of three target voice disorders. Unlike DLC, in which the fusion is a linear combination, the fusion mechanism in TSD is an alternative DNN (termed second-stage DNN). Note that the inputs of the second-stage DNN are acoustic signals (26 dimensions), medical records (34 dimensions), and the outputs of the two first-stage DNNs with six-dimensional vectors (3+3 dimensions). The second-stage DNN fuses outputs of the first-stage DNNs, mean of acoustic signal, and medical records, and then performs classification. Additionally, the architecture of all DNNs contains 300 neurons with three hidden layers and having sigmoid function for the activation function.

Fig. 2.

The block diagram of the proposed TSD framework.

A) Experimental setup

This study focuses on three typical voice disorders including phonotraumatic lesions (i.e. vocal nodules, polyps, and cysts), glottic neoplasm, and unilateral vocal paralysis. The voice samples are recorded by asking the patients to pronounce a sustained vowel (/a:/) for at least 3 s. During the experimental processes, we randomly divided each class of voice disorders into training (80%) and testing (20%) sets. The performance was verified through five-fold cross-validation. In addition to the 13 MFCCs, we added 13 delta features (the first derivative features of MFCCs) to form 26 dimensional MFCCs+delta feature vectors. The delta feature is obtained from the frames of MFCC over time. Because MFCC is the static cepstral features, adding dynamic information is widely used in many recognition tasks [Reference Fang, Fei, Xu and Tsao9, Reference Kumar, Kim and Stern53–Reference Fang, Chuang and Wang55]. The cepstral variance normalization was then applied to the MFCC(N)+delta feature vectors in such a manner that the normalized feature vectors have zero mean and unit variance.

In this study, we used three performance indexes: overall accuracy (ACC), sensitivity, and UAR. These indexes were widely employed in the classification tasks. First, ACC is the value of the difference between prediction and truth in equation (1), where TP, TN, FP, and FN represent true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative, respectively.

(1)$$ACC = 100\%\times {TN+TP \over TN + TP + FN + FP}.$$

Second, as shown in equations (2)(4), the sensitivity for each disorder is also a common index for the classification task, where neo, pho, and pal stand, respectively, for neoplasm, phonotrauma, and vocal palsy; unneo, unpho, and unpal denote non-neoplasm, non-phonotrauma, and non-vocal palsy, respectively.

(2)$$SN_{neo} = 100\%\times {TP_{neo}\over TP_{neo}+FN_{unneo}},$$

(3)$$SN_{pho} = 100\%\times {TP_{pho}\over TP_{pho}+FN_{unpho}},$$

(4)$$SN_{pal}= 100\%\times {TP_{pal}\over TP_{pal}+FN_{unpal}}.$$

Finally, UAR is an alternative index considering unbalanced data, as shown in equation (5), where K denotes the number of classes (K=3 in this study).

(5)$$UAR = 100\%\times {SN_{neo}+SN_{pho}+SN_{pal}\over K}.$$

B) Experimental results

Figure 3 shows acoustic waves and spectrogram plots of glottic neoplasm, phonotrauma, and vocal palsy voice samples. In the waveform plots, all samples had irregular diversification in each period. Because of the loss of normal muscle tone, voice samples from cases of vocal palsy usually demonstrate much lower amplitude of volume (3b) than others, with weak spectrum in high-frequency harmonics (3e). Glottic neoplasm may invade the deeper structures of the vocal folds, such as vocal ligaments of muscles. In contrast, phonotraumatic lesions are usually confined to subepithelial spaces, as they do not violate the original tissue structure. Accordingly, we observed that the harmonic structure of phonotraumatic samples is generally preserved (3f), while cases of glottic neoplasm showed distorted harmonics (3d). These differences are more prevalent in higher frequency domain. However, owing to the limitations from inter-subject variability, it remains difficult to categorize the pathological voice simply by time-domain waves and frequency-domain signals.

Fig. 3.

Waveforms from voice samples of neoplasm (a), vocal palsy (b), and phonotrauma (c). Wide band spectrograms in voice samples of neoplasm (d), vocal palsy (e), and phonotrauma (f).

Additionally, we also plot the feature distributions to better visualize the results via principle component analysis (PCA). PCA is a widely used approach in which a linear transformation is designed to compress the information among features into the relatively lower dimensions [Reference Fang, Chuang and Wang55–Reference Meng and Yang59]. Figures 4 and 5 show the distribution of the first and second principal component among all data sets for acoustic signals and medical record, respectively. Figures 4(b) and 4(c) are the joint distribution in two-dimension principal component space of the first and second principal component for acoustic signals MFCC, respectively. The input data set for PCA is the 26-dimensional MFCCs of all training data. The x- and y-axis in Fig. 4 represent the first and the second principle comments (PC), respectively. The unit of PC is the same as that in MFCC because each PC is, in fact, a linear combination of all MFCCs. By reconstructing the covariance matrix of all training data, the linear weights is determined by the corresponding eigenvalue, which quantifies the information contributed by the corresponding MFCC component. These figures show that the features of three categories almost overlap in the scatter plot, while few neoplasm frames can be distinguished. Figures 4(a) and 4(d) plot the histogram of individual components and show a similar trend. That is, three kinds of voice disorders are overlapped in most area, making the classification difficult while using only two components. We follow the same procedure to plot the histogram of individual components and the joint distribution for medical record, as shown in Fig. 5. Note that the difference between Figs 5 and 4 is that the MFCC feature is frame-based whereas the medical record is individual-based, thus the samples are unequal. More importantly, results show that the medical record seems to has better distinguish ability among three voice disorders. From Fig. 5(b) and 5(c), the overlapped region between vocal palsy and phonotrauma is smaller than Fig. 4. Accordingly, these additional plots supported our idea of including medical records as an adjuvant features to differentiate three categories of vocal disorders.

Fig. 4.

Distribution of the first and second principal component for acoustic signals MFCC. (a) and (d) Are the histogram of individual components, while (b) and (c) are the joint distribution in two-dimension principal component space (the first and second principal components are placed at different axes in (b) and (c)).

Fig. 5.

Distribution of the first and second principal component for medical record. (a) and (d) Are the histogram of individual components, while (b) and (c) are the joint distribution in two-dimension principal component space (the first and second principal components are placed at different axes in (b) and (c)).

Table 4 reports three performance indexes of the OSD, DLC, HGD, and TSD systems. Performance indexes for systems using only acoustic signals or medical records are also listed as the baseline for comparison. From the table, we first note that the system using medical records outperforms the one using acoustic signals, with an accuracy improvement of 4.62% (from 76.94 to 81.56%) and a UAR improvement of 9.40% (from 64.25 to 73.65%), and the difference was statistical significant (p<0.001) (Tables 5 and 6). The results confirm that the medical records can contribute more useful information as compared with acoustic signals when classifying multiple voice disorders.

Table 4.

Performance comparison.

Table 5.

P-value for accuracy (ACC).

Table 6.

P-value for unweighted average recall (UAR).

Furthermore, the results in Table 4 demonstrate that DLC, a typical multimodal learning system, outperforms systems using acoustic signals and medical records alone. More specifically, DLC achieved significant accuracy improvements of 6.64% (from 76.94 to 83.58%) and UAR improvements of 9.83% (from 64.25 to 74.08%), compared with systems using acoustic signals (p<0.001, Tables 5 and 6). We also noticed that DLC (model-based combination) outperforms OSD (feature-based combination) in this task. When comparing to OSD, DLC yields a higher accuracy of 6.10% (from 77.48 to 83.58%) (p<0.001, Table 5).

The results suggest that a direct combination of a dynamic signal source (acoustic feature sequence) and static information (medical records) may be problematic in the feature domain, and thus, the performance does not necessarily improve compared with learning from an individual source. In this case, the model-based combination is a more suitable approach. The same trends have been reported in previous multimodal learning works [Reference Hou, Wang, Lai, Tsao, Chang and Wang45].

Table 4 also shows that the proposed HGD framework outperforms OSD in regard to accuracy (p<0.001, Table 5). Notably, when comparing with OSD and DLC, TSD achieved significant improvements of accuracy and UAR (p<0.001, Tables 5 and 6). Note that OSD uses a simple feature concatenation scheme and DLC uses a simple model combination scheme to learn information from multiple modalities. On the other hand, the proposed TSD processes acoustic features and medical records using the first-stage DNNs, whose outputs are fed to the second-stage DNN. Specifically, the TSD jointly optimizes DNNs for feature processing and for the fusion module for classification and is thus able to achieve higher performance than OSD (optimizing a DNN for the fusion module) and DLC (optimizing DNNs for feature processing).

Finally, we note that TSD outperforms HGD, leading to an accuracy improvement of 3.68% (from 83.58 to 87.26%) and a UAR improvement of 5.46% (from 76.13 to 81.59%) with a borderline statistical significance (Tables 5 and 6). Note that HGD adopts a GMM-based supervector for a more suitable combination of the information in acoustic signals and medical data, and thus achieves better performance than OSD and DLC. However, the GMM-based supervector is an average representation of the whole acoustic feature sequence. On the contrary, the TSD that jointly optimizes first-stage DNNs (for feature processing) and the second-stage DNN (for fusion) in order to generate optimal classification results representing a better approach for this pathological voice detection task.

From the results of Table 4, we can observe an interesting diversity of interaction between disease categories and classification models. The four multimodal learning systems and the systems using acoustic signals and medical records alone perform similarly in phonotrauma, in which all the sensitivities are around 90%. The results suggest that when individual classifiers can already yield satisfactory performance, the multimodal learning generate only marginal performance improvements. However, for glottic neoplasm, although systems using only acoustic signals and medical records do not perform well, the proposed HGD and TSD can yield notable improvements of performance by combining acoustic signals and medical records. The TSD approach achieves best performance among all results reported in Table 4, confirming the advantages of the two-stage learning architecture, which jointly considers feature processing and multimodality fusion in a unified framework.