ZusammenfassungZIEL DER STUDIE: Die Sprache tauber Personen unterscheidet sich deutlich von der Sprache von Menschen mit normalem Gehör. Das Ziel der vorliegenden Studie war es, die akustischen Änderungen in der Artikulation der Eckvokale des Vokaldreiecks bei tauben Kindern und Erwachsenen nach Implantation eines Cochlear-Implantats zu untersuchen. METHODEN: 13 prälingual ertaubte Kinder und 12 postlingual ertaubte Erwachsene wurden in die Studie eingeschlossen. Stimmproben der Eckvokale des Vokaldreiecks (/a/, /i/, und /u) wurden vor und 6 bis 12 Monate nach der Implantation analysiert. Die Frequenz des 1. (F1) und 2. (F2) Formanten sowie der F1/F2 Quotient aller drei Eckvokale und die Fläche des Vokaldreiecks wurden zu allen Messzeitpunkten berechnet und miteinander verglichen. ERGEBNISSE: Bei den Erwachsenen konnten keine signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen der Frequenz der Formanten, dem Quotienten F1/F2 und den Vokal-Dreieckflächen erhoben werden. Bei den Kindern wurde eine signifikante Änderung der Frequenz der Formanten beobachtet. Nach der Implantation sank F1 von /u/ signifikant. Der günstige Abfall von F1 von /i/ und der F1/F2 Quotienten von /i/ und /u/ war nahe der statistischen Signifikanz. Alle Veränderungen bewirkten eine bessere phonologische Differenzierung der beiden Vokale. Die signifikante Änderung von F1 von /u/ und die Änderung von F1 von /i/ führten zu einer Ausweitung des Vokalraums, die sich in einer Zunahme der Fläche des Vokaldreiecks ausdrückte. SCHLUSSFOLGERUNGEN: Es wird angenommen, dass das erworbene Hörvermögen und die Weiterentwicklung der neuromuskulären Kontrolle der Artikulation bei Kindern der Grund für die signifikante Besserung ist. Die Ergebnisse der Studie lassen auch vermuten, dass die Fläche des Vokaldreiecks ein nützlicher und sensitiver Indikator der präziseren Artikulation nach Implantation eines Cochlear-Implantats ist. Für eine maximale und schnellere Besserung der Artikulation sollte eine regelmäßige Sprachtherapie in der Rehabilitation tauber Personen nach Implantation inkludiert sein.SummaryPURPOSE: Speech of deaf persons differs considerably from that of speakers with normal hearing. The purpose of this study was to investigate the acoustic changes in articulation of corner vowels in deaf children and adults after cochlear implantation. METHODS: Thirteen prelingually deaf children and 12 postlingually deaf adults were included in the study. Voice samples of the isolated corner vowels /a/, /i/ and /u/ were analyzed before and 6–12 months after the implantation. The frequencies of the first (F1) and second (F2) formants, the F1/F2 ratio of all three corner vowels, and the area of the vowel triangle were calculated and compared before and 6–12 months after the implantation. RESULT: In the adults, no significant differences were detected in the formant frequencies, the F1/F2 ratio or the area of the vowel triangle. However, significant change in formant frequencies was detected in the group of 13 prelingually deaf children. After the implantation the F1 of /u/ decreased significantly, and favorable decreases of the F1 of /i/ and the F1/F2 ratio in /i/ and /u/ were close to being statistically significant. All changes caused better phonological difference between the two vowels. The significant change in the F1 of /u/ and the change of F1 of /i/ resulted in the expansion of the vowel space, which was expressed as an increase in the area of the vowel triangle. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that in children the acquired hearing ability and further development of neuromuscular control of articulation are the reasons for the significant improvement after cochlear implantation. The results also suggest that the area of the vowel triangle is a useful and sensitive indicator of the more precise articulation after implantation. In order to achieve better and faster improvement of articulation, regular speech therapy should be included in the rehabilitation of deaf persons after cochlear implantation.
[1]
Gunnar Fant,et al.
Acoustic Theory Of Speech Production
,
1960
.
[2]
Martin Kompis,et al.
Changes of voice and articulation in children with cochlear implants.
,
2002,
International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology.
[3]
W. Baumgartner,et al.
Effect of the loss of auditory feedback on segmental parameters of vowels of postlingually deafened speakers.
,
2003,
Auris, nasus, larynx.
[4]
T. Hixon,et al.
Respiratory kinematics in profoundly hearing-impaired speakers.
,
1977,
Journal of speech and hearing research.
[5]
S. Monini,et al.
Clarion cochlear implant: short-term effects on voice parameters.
,
1997,
The American journal of otology.
[6]
J S Perkell,et al.
Covariation of cochlear implant users' perception and production of vowel contrasts and their identification by listeners with normal hearing.
,
2001,
Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.
[7]
K I Kirk,et al.
The effects of cochlear implant use on voice parameters.
,
1983,
Otolaryngologic clinics of North America.
[8]
A. Holbrook,et al.
THE VOWEL FORMANTS OF DEAF AND NORMAL-HEARING ELEVEN- TO FOURTEEN-YEAR-OLD BOYS.
,
1964,
The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.
[9]
G M Siegel,et al.
Auditory feedback in the regulation of voice.
,
1974,
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[10]
R. B. Monsen,et al.
Toward measuring how well hearing-impaired children speak.
,
1978,
Journal of speech and hearing research.
[11]
R. B. Monsen.
Normal and reduced phonological space in the production of vowels by deaf adolescents
,
1976
.
[12]
W. Baumgartner,et al.
Changes in Vowel Quality after Cochlear Implantation
,
2003,
ORL.
[13]
V. Samar,et al.
Spectral study of deviant resonance in the speech of women who are deaf.
,
1992,
Journal of speech and hearing research.
[14]
Á. Ramos,et al.
Speech perception with the ACE and the SPEAK speech coding strategies for children implanted with the Nucleus cochlear implant.
,
2005,
International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology.
[15]
A. Bosman,et al.
Changes in vowel quality in post-lingually deafened cochlear implant users.
,
1997,
Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.
[16]
J. Perkell,et al.
The distinctness of speakers' productions of vowel contrasts is related to their discrimination of the contrasts.
,
2004,
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[17]
Magnús Pétursson,et al.
Elemente einer Akustischen Phonetik
,
1986
.
[18]
R. S. Waldstein,et al.
Effects of postlingual deafness on speech production: implications for the role of auditory feedback.
,
1990,
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[19]
Harold T. Edwards,et al.
Applied Phonetics: The Sounds of American English
,
1992
.
[20]
D. Povel,et al.
The effect of segmental and suprasegmental corrections on the intelligibility of deaf speech.
,
1985,
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
[21]
D. Denk,et al.
[Cochlear implantation and auditory feedback].
,
2000,
Wiener klinische Wochenschrift.
[22]
B. Papsin,et al.
Acoustic Analysis of the Voice in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Recipients: A Longitudinal Study
,
2005,
The Laryngoscope.
[23]
R. B. Monsen.
Durational aspects of vowel production in the speech of deaf children.
,
1974,
Journal of speech and hearing research.