Speech performance of adult cantonese-speaking laryngectomees using different types of alaryngeal phonation.

The purpose of the present study was to compare the speech performance of four types of alaryngeal phonation-electrolaryngeal (EL), pneumatic artificial laryngeal (PA), tracheoesophageal (TE), and standard esophageal (SE) speech-by adult Cantonese-speaking laryngectomees. Subjective ratings of (1) voice quality, (2) articulation proficiency, (3) quietness of speech, (4) pitch variability, and (5) overall speech intelligibility were given by eight naive individuals who had no prior experience with any form of alaryngeal speech. Results indicated that SE and TE speech was perceived to be more hoarse than PA and EL speech. EL speech was associated with significantly less pitch variability, and PA speakers produced speech with the least amount of perceived noise. However, articulation proficiency and overall speech intelligibility were found to be comparable in all four types of alaryngeal speakers.

[1]  N Yanagihara,et al.  Significance of harmonic changes and noise components in hoarseness. , 1967, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[2]  Y. Lebrun,et al.  [On the artificial larynx]. , 1967, Zeitschrift fur Laryngologie, Rhinologie, Otologie und ihre Grenzgebiete.

[3]  M HYMAN,et al.  An experimental study of artificial-larynx and esophageal speech. , 1955, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[4]  R. L. McCroskey,et al.  The Relative Intelligibility of Esophageal Speech and Artificial-Larynx Speech , 1963 .

[5]  T. Shipp,et al.  Frequency, duration, and perceptual measures in relation to judgments of alaryngeal speech acceptability. , 1967, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[6]  R. Tikofsky,et al.  A COMPARISON OF THE INTELLIGIBILITY OF ESOPHAGEAL AND NORMAL SPEAKERS. , 1965, Folia phoniatrica.

[7]  B Weinberg,et al.  Vocal roughness and jitter characteristics of vowels produced by esophageal speakers. , 1978, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[8]  B Weinberg,et al.  Artificial larynx. , 1984, The Laryngoscope.

[9]  N. Isshiki,et al.  AIR INTAKE AND USAGE IN ESOPHAGEAL SPEECH. , 1965, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[10]  T. Ching,et al.  Communication of lexical tones in Cantonese alaryngeal speech. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[11]  J C SNIDECOR,et al.  XLIV Temporal and Pitch Aspects of Superior Esophageal Speech , 1959, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[12]  B Weinberg,et al.  Speech produced with the Tokyo artificial larynx. , 1973, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[13]  B Weinberg,et al.  Tone in Thai alaryngeal speech. , 1988, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[14]  J. Matthews,et al.  FACTORS RELATED TO SPEECH PROFICIENCY OF THE LARYNGECTOMIZED. , 1963, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

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

[16]  Raymond D. Kent,et al.  Acoustic Analysis of Speech , 2009 .

[17]  S Bennett,et al.  Acceptability ratings of normal, esophageal, and artificial larynx speech. , 1973, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[18]  J. Noll,et al.  Relationship of selected acoustic variables to judgments of esophageal speech , 1969 .

[19]  M Hyman,et al.  Relationship of Acoustic Parameters and Perceptual Ratings of Esophageal Speech , 1975, Perceptual and motor skills.

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