The Relationship Between Voice Parameters and Speech Intelligibility: A Scoping Review

Objective To synthesize existing evidence of the relationship between voice parameters and speech intelligibility. Methods Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, 13 databases were searched and a manual search was conducted. A narrative synthesis of methodological quality, study characteristics, participant demographics, voice parameter categorization, and their relationship to speech intelligibility was conducted. A Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was also performed. Results A total of 5593 studies were retrieved, and 30 eligible studies were included in the final scoping review. The studies were given scores of 10–25 (average 16.93) out of 34 in the methodological quality assessment. Research that analyzed voice parameters related to speech intelligibility, encompassing perceptual, acoustic, and aerodynamic parameters, was included. Validated and nonvalidated perceptual voice assessments showed divergent results regarding the relationship between perceptual parameters and speech intelligibility. The relationship between acoustic parameters and speech intelligibility was found to be complex and the results were inconsistent. The limited research on aerodynamic parameters did not reach a consensus on their relationship with speech intelligibility. Studies in which listeners were not speech-language pathologists (SLPs) far outnumbered those with SLP listeners, and research conducted in English contexts significantly exceeded that in non-English contexts. The GRADE evaluation indicated that the quality of evidence varied from low to moderate. Discussion The results for the relationship between voice parameters and intelligibility showed significant heterogeneity. Future research should consider age-related voice changes and include diverse age groups. To enhance validity and comparability, it will be necessary to report effect sizes, tool validity, inter-rater reliability, and calibration procedures. Voice assessments should account for the validation status of tools because of their potential impact on the outcomes. The linguistic context may also influence the results.