Long-term effects of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment on daily voice use in Parkinson’s disease as measured with a portable voice accumulator

Joakim Körner GustafssonDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Division of Speech and Language Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; ;Functional Area Speech and Language Pathology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Correspondence[email protected]

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5157-5790 View further author information

Maria SöderstenDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Division of Speech and Language Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; ;Functional Area Speech and Language Pathology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; View further author information

Sten TernströmDepartment of Speech, Music and Hearing, School of Computer Science and Communication, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, SwedenView further author information

Ellika SchallingDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Division of Speech and Language Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; ;Functional Area Speech and Language Pathology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden;

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5955-5452 View further author information

Figures & data

Table 1. Results from individual with PD’s ratings with QASD pre-treatment, post-treatment and at follow-up (FU) 6 and 12 months post-treatment. Total and separate subscale scores are shown. A higher score indicates more severe symptoms.

Download CSV Display Table

Table 2. Duration of the different registration periods pre-treatment, during treatment (Treat 1–4), post-treatment and at follow-up (FU) 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment.

Download CSV Display Table

Figure 1. Mean voice sound level (L_voice) and mean environmental noise sound level (L_noise) during the whole week-long monitoring periods for both participants (vertical mouth-to-microphone distance of approximately 10 cm).

Figure 2. Mean voice sound level (L_voice) and mean environmental noise sound level (L_noise) during the different monitoring periods with data presented for leisure and work activities respectively for both participants (vertical mouth-to-microphone distance of approximately 10 cm).

Figure 3. Mean voice sound levels (L_voice) from laboratory recordings and for different ranges of environmental noise outside the clinic for both the individual with PD and the control (vertical mouth-to-microphone distance of approximately 10 cm).

Table 3. Correlations between the participants’ L_voice and the L_noise within respective registration period including pre-treatment, post-treatment and at follow-up (FU) 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment.

Download CSV Display Table

Long-term effects of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment on daily voice use in Parkinson’s disease as measured with a portable voice accumulator

Table 1. Results from individual with PD’s ratings with QASD pre-treatment, post-treatment and at follow-up (FU) 6 and 12 months post-treatment. Total and separate subscale scores are shown. A higher score indicates more severe symptoms.

Table 2. Duration of the different registration periods pre-treatment, during treatment (Treat 1–4), post-treatment and at follow-up (FU) 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment.

Table 3. Correlations between the participants’ L_voice and the L_noise within respective registration period including pre-treatment, post-treatment and at follow-up (FU) 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment.

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Your download is now in progress and you may close this window

Login or register to access this feature

Long-term effects of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment on daily voice use in Parkinson’s disease as measured with a portable voice accumulator

Figures & data

Table 1. Results from individual with PD’s ratings with QASD pre-treatment, post-treatment and at follow-up (FU) 6 and 12 months post-treatment. Total and separate subscale scores are shown. A higher score indicates more severe symptoms.

Table 2. Duration of the different registration periods pre-treatment, during treatment (Treat 1–4), post-treatment and at follow-up (FU) 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment.

Table 3. Correlations between the participants’ Lvoice and the Lnoise within respective registration period including pre-treatment, post-treatment and at follow-up (FU) 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment.

Related research

To cite this article:

Download citation

Information for

Open access

Opportunities

Help and information

Keep up to date

Table 3. Correlations between the participants’ L_voice and the L_noise within respective registration period including pre-treatment, post-treatment and at follow-up (FU) 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment.