Differences in speaking proficiencies in three laryngectomee groups
- PMID: 3977752
- DOI: 10.1001/archotol.1985.00800060040003
Differences in speaking proficiencies in three laryngectomee groups
Abstract
Speaking proficiencies of three groups of alaryngeal speakers were examined: (1) esophageal speakers (n = 12), (2) electrolarynx speakers (n = 11), and (3) tracheoesophageal puncture speakers (n = 10). Subjects were videotaped while engaged in a variety of speaking tasks. Three groups of judges, varying in their knowledge about laryngectomees, independently rated the speaking proficiency of each videotaped speaker. Specific variables rated included voice quality, pitch, loudness, intelligibility, rate of speaking, visual presentation during speech, extraneous speaking noise, and overall communicative effectiveness. Multivariate analyses of variance performed on the ratings made by each judge group disclosed significant differences in ratings for various speaking variables for the three laryngectomee groups. In addition, differences in proficiency ratings for the laryngectomees were found, depending on the expertise level of the judges.
Similar articles
-
Speaking proficiency variations according to method of alaryngeal voicing.Laryngoscope. 1987 Jun;97(6):737-9. Laryngoscope. 1987. PMID: 3586817
-
Laryngectomees' and nonlaryngectomees' perceptions of three methods of alaryngeal voicing.J Commun Disord. 1987 Aug;20(4):295-304. doi: 10.1016/0021-9924(87)90011-6. J Commun Disord. 1987. PMID: 3624525
-
Speech performance of adult cantonese-speaking laryngectomees using different types of alaryngeal phonation.J Voice. 1997 Sep;11(3):338-44. doi: 10.1016/s0892-1997(97)80013-6. J Voice. 1997. PMID: 9297679
-
Acceptability ratings and intelligibility scores of alaryngeal speakers by three listener groups.Br J Disord Commun. 1991 Dec;26(3):325-35. doi: 10.3109/13682829109012018. Br J Disord Commun. 1991. PMID: 1814417
-
A comparison of the speech acceptability of good and excellent esophageal and tracheoesophageal speakers.J Commun Disord. 1987 Feb;20(1):41-9. doi: 10.1016/0021-9924(87)90042-6. J Commun Disord. 1987. PMID: 3819002
Cited by
-
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.
-
Surface Electromyography-Based Recognition, Synthesis, and Perception of Prosodic Subvocal Speech.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2021 Jun 18;64(6S):2134-2153. doi: 10.1044/2021_JSLHR-20-00257. Epub 2021 May 12. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2021. PMID: 33979177 Free PMC article.
-
The relationship between communicative participation and postlaryngectomy speech outcomes.Head Neck. 2016 Apr;38 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):E1955-61. doi: 10.1002/hed.24353. Epub 2015 Dec 29. Head Neck. 2016. PMID: 26714043 Free PMC article.
-
Tracheoesophageal Puncture - an Indian perspective.Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001 Oct;53(4):277-80. doi: 10.1007/BF02991547. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001. PMID: 23119822 Free PMC article.