Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of naturalness and severity in tracheoesophageal (TE) speakers.

The purpose of this study was to determine the psychophysical character and validity of auditory-perceptual ratings of naturalness and overall severity for tracheoesophageal (TE) speech. This was achieved through use of direct magnitude estimation (DME) and equal-appearing interval (EAI) scaling procedures. Twenty adult listeners judged speech naturalness and overall severity from connected speech samples produced by 20 adult male TE speakers. A comparison of DME- and EAI-scaled judgments yielded a metathetic continuum for naturalness and a prothetic continuum for overall severity. These data provide support for the use of either DME or EAI scales in auditory-perceptual ratings of naturalness, but they provide support only for DME scales in judging overall severity for TE speech. The present results suggest that the nature of perceptual phenomena (prothetic vs. metathetic) for TE speakers is consistent with findings for the same dimensions produced by normal laryngeal speakers. These data also support a need for further study of perceptual dimensions associated with TE voice and speech in order to avoid the inappropriate and invalid use of EAI scales frequently found in diagnosis, assessment, and evaluation of this clinical population.

[1]  G Molenberghs,et al.  The dysphonia severity index: an objective measure of vocal quality based on a multiparameter approach. , 2000, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[2]  N. Schiavetti,et al.  Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of stuttering severity. , 1983, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[3]  M. Singer,et al.  A prospective study of tracheoesophageal speech. , 1986, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[4]  B Weinberg,et al.  Aerodynamic and myoelastic contributions to tracheoesophageal voice production. , 1987, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[5]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  Psychophysics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural and Social Prospects , 1975 .

[6]  J. Kreiman,et al.  Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[7]  G. Fairbanks.  Voice and articulation drillbook , 1960 .

[8]  M. Singer,et al.  A comparative acoustic study of normal, esophageal, and tracheoesophageal speech production. , 1984, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[9]  F. Emanuel,et al.  Direct magnitude estimation and equal appearing interval scaling of vowel roughness. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[10]  N. Schiavetti,et al.  Acoustic and psychophysical dimensions of the perceived speech naturalness of nonstutterers and posttreatment stutterers. , 1990, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[11]  F. Hilgers,et al.  Acoustical analysis and perceptual evaluation of tracheoesophageal prosthetic voice. , 1998, Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation.

[12]  J. Watson,et al.  Differences in speaking proficiencies in three laryngectomee groups. , 1985, Archives of otolaryngology.

[13]  M. P. Friedman,et al.  HANDBOOK OF PERCEPTION , 1977 .

[14]  R. L. Ebel,et al.  Estimation of the reliability of ratings , 1951 .

[15]  T. Whitehill,et al.  Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of hypernasality. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[16]  R. Martin,et al.  Stuttering and speech naturalness. , 1984, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[17]  Van Riper,et al.  Speech correction : principles and methods , 1939 .

[18]  J. C. Snidecor.  Speech rehabilitation of the laryngectomized , 1968 .

[19]  M. Trudeau,et al.  Acoustic characteristics of female tracheoesophageal speech. , 1990, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[20]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[21]  G. Kidd,et al.  Psychophysical scaling of distorted speech. , 1981, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[22]  N. Schiavetti,et al.  Construct validity of direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of speech intelligibility: evidence from a study of the hearing impaired. , 1981, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[23]  J. Liss,et al.  A comparison of equal-appearing interval scaling and direct magnitude estimation of nasal voice quality. , 2000, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[24]  N. Schiavetti,et al.  A Methodological Control Study of Scaled Vocal Breathiness Measurements , 1999 .

[25]  Raymond D. Kent.  Hearing and Believing , 1996 .

[26]  Raymond G. Daniloff,et al.  Articulation assessment and treatment issues , 1984 .

[27]  David R. Beukelman,et al.  Clinical Management of Dysarthric Speakers , 1987 .

[28]  J Lindström,et al.  Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of voice and speech quality: a study of patients with laryngeal cancer treated with laryngectomy vs irradiation. , 1999, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[29]  R H Pindzola,et al.  Duration and Frequency Characteristics of Tracheoesophageal Speech , 1989, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[30]  R H Pindzola,et al.  Acceptability ratings of tracheoesophageal speech , 1988, The Laryngoscope.

[31]  M. Singer,et al.  An Endoscopic Technique for Restoration of Voice after Laryngectomy , 1980, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[32]  M. Andrews,et al.  Acceptability and intelligibility of tracheoesophageal speech. , 1985, Archives of otolaryngology.

[33]  P. Doyle.  Foundations of Voice and Speech Rehabilitation Following Laryngeal Cancer , 1994 .