Acoustic and perceptual characteristics of esophageal and tracheoesophageal speech production
- PMID: 10834832
- DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9924(99)00030-1
Acoustic and perceptual characteristics of esophageal and tracheoesophageal speech production
Abstract
This study comprehensively compared the speech of laryngeal speakers (L), tracheoesophageal speakers (TE), good esophageal speakers (GE), and moderate esophageal speakers (ME) to determine the consequences of TE versus E speech rehabilitation. Twenty speakers (five in each group) were each recorded while reading 16 sentences, and their recordings were analyzed acoustically and perceptually. Acoustic analysis included duration, intensity, fundamental frequency (F0), intonation, and voice onset time measurements. Perceptual analysis included intelligibility and acceptability judgments by naive listeners. The main acoustic results showed that L speakers differ significantly from all alaryngeal speakers in F0 and intonation production. Moderate esophageal speakers differed significantly from all other groups in duration measures. Perceptual results revealed that L speakers were most intelligible and acceptable, whereas ME speakers were least so. Tracheoesophageal speakers were more acceptable than GE speakers but not more intelligible. Significant correlations emerged between F0, duration measures, and acceptability, and between F0 and intelligibility. Also, a significant correlation emerged between acceptability and intelligibility. Findings emphasized the importance of categorizing esophageal speakers into groups based on their speech proficiency level.
Similar articles
-
Acoustic analyses clarify voiced-voiceless distinction in tracheoesophageal speech.Acta Otolaryngol. 2000 Sep;120(6):771-7. doi: 10.1080/000164800750000333. Acta Otolaryngol. 2000. PMID: 11099157
-
Spectral, cepstral, and multivariate exploration of tracheoesophageal voice quality in continuous speech and sustained vowels.Laryngoscope. 2009 Dec;119(12):2384-94. doi: 10.1002/lary.20620. Laryngoscope. 2009. PMID: 19718753
-
Perception of stop consonants produced by esophageal and tracheoesophageal speakers.J Otolaryngol. 1989 Jun;18(4):184-8. J Otolaryngol. 1989. PMID: 2739001
-
The pharyngoesophageal segment in laryngectomees--videoradiographic, acoustic, and voice quality perceptual data.Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2008;33(3):115-25. doi: 10.1080/14015430701855788. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2008. PMID: 18608876
-
The effects of a total laryngectomy on speech breathing.Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008 Jun;16(3):200-4. doi: 10.1097/MOO.0b013e3282fe96ac. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008. PMID: 18475071 Review.
Cited by
-
The relationship between biomechanics of pharyngoesophageal segment and tracheoesophageal phonation.Sci Rep. 2019 Jul 5;9(1):9722. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-46223-7. Sci Rep. 2019. PMID: 31278355 Free PMC article.
-
Electrode Setup for Electromyography-Based Silent Speech Interfaces: A Pilot Study.Sensors (Basel). 2025 Jan 28;25(3):781. doi: 10.3390/s25030781. Sensors (Basel). 2025. PMID: 39943420 Free PMC article.
-
The INFVo perceptual rating scale for substitution voicing: development and reliability.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2006 May;263(5):435-9. doi: 10.1007/s00405-005-1033-z. Epub 2006 Jan 11. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2006. PMID: 16404623
-
Objective and subjective voice outcomes after total laryngectomy: a systematic review.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018 Jan;275(1):11-26. doi: 10.1007/s00405-017-4790-6. Epub 2017 Oct 31. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018. PMID: 29086803 Free PMC article.
-
Auditory-perceptual speech outcomes and quality of life after total laryngectomy.Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013 Jan;148(1):82-8. doi: 10.1177/0194599812461755. Epub 2012 Sep 24. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013. PMID: 23008330 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources