Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech

ACOUSTICAL AND PERCEPTUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ALARYNGEAL SPEECH
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN BASLP,MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
OVERVIEW
I. Acoustic characteristics 1. Fo in phonation, speech 2. Intensity 3. Perturbations 4. Range 5. Temporal aspects VOT, RT FT in phonation, MPD, Vowel duration, Rate of speech, Pause time, Total duration 6. Spectral aspects Format structures, LTAS II. Perceptual aspects Pitch, Loudness, Quality III. Prosody in alaryngeal speech IV. Intelligibility and Acceptability
Why acoustics ?
It is contributed to the understanding of Acoustic output of specific physiologic processes The feature that may contribute to variation in perceptual responses The physical properties of speech that may signal vocal deviancy
OVERVIEW
Fundamental frequency
Fundamental frequency of vibration reflects the vibrating rate of the vocal folds
Its unit is Hertz (Hz)
Can be measured during sustained phonation or during connected speech

I. Acoustical aspects
1.
Fo in phonation
I. Electro larynx: depends on the instrument (100 to 200 Hz)

II. Esophageal
speech: Hammberg & Nord(1989) difficult due to low value and aperiodic nature

Ranges from29.37Hz (Perry & Tikofsky, 1965) to 86.50 (Horri, 1982) Weinberg(1980) normal pattern of high Fo with high vowels; higher Fo in females than malesmorphology of PE segment (females-smaller and thinner)
III. TEP: commonly aperiodic Damste(1958)

Due to variation in subneoglottic pressure Length and elasticity of PE segment is not constant and adjustable as in normals Ranges from 50.40 (Kyatta, 1964) to 100 (Zanoff et al., 1990) Weinberg(1980): Higher Fo in TEP compared to Eso. due to pulmonary air supply Detectable Fo with definable harmonics in TEP speechregular vibratory pattern in PE segment due to more efficient respiratory drive in TEP speech
OVERVIEW
I. Acoustic characteristics 1. Fo in phonation, Speech 2. Intensity 3. Perturbations 4. Range 5. Temporal aspects VOT, RT FT in phonation, MPD, Vowel duration, Rate of speech, Pause time, Total duration 6. Spectral aspects Format structures, LTAS II. Perceptual aspects Pitch, Loudness, Quality III. Prosody in alaryngeal speech IV. Intelligibility and Acceptability
2.
SFF i. Electro larynx: depends on the instrument ii. Esophageal speech:
57.40Hz (Weinberg&Benett, 1972) to 77.10 (Robbins et al., 1984) SFF is 1 octave lower in males and 2 in females Slavin & Ferrand(1995) even proficient speaker had difficulty controlling Fo during speech therefore high variability than normals
iii. TEP:
72.73 (Moon & Weinberg, 1987) to 108.60 (Trudeau & Qi, 1990) Closer to laryngeal speakers atleast for male speakers Less variability than Eso although there is
OVERVIEW
Intensity
It is a reflection of the acoustic power produced by the vibrating vocal folds Intensity is expressed in decibels (dB) Can be measured using sustained vowel or connected speech
2. Vocal intensity A. Elx:

Average ranges from 75 to 85 dB (typical of normals) Depends on the instrument
B. Eso:
Average
range of 62.4dB Below 6-10 dB of normals (Hoops and Noll,1969; Snidecor and Isshiki, 1965)
C. TEP:
Author Bags & Pine (1983) Singer(1983) Method Results
4 each laryngeal, Eso& TE
Larger Intensity in TEP speakers due to greater Intraoral pressure Considerable lower Intensity in Eso High Intensity with TE speakers Sustained vowels N: 76.9 dBSPL Eso: 74 dBSPL TE: 88 dBSPL Paragraph reading N: 69.3d BSPL Eso: 59.3 dBSPL TE: 79.4 dBSPL
Eso & TE Laryngeal & TE 15 normals, Eso, TE Sustained vowels Paragraph reading
Blood(1984)
Robbins et al.(1984)
C. TEP: Author Rajashekhar (1991) Method Eso & TE Phonation of /a/ Speech Results /a/ Eso: 13.6dBSPL TE: 16.4dBSPL Speech Eso: 34.7dBSPL TE: 39.1dBSPL Vowel Eso: 79.7dBSPL TE: 65dBSPL N: 72.3dBSPL Eso 35.5dBSPL TE: 32.6dBSPL
Debruyne et al. (1994)
12 TE 12 Eso
Veena. K. D.,(1998)
5 each normals Eso and TE
OVERVIEW
Pertubation refers to the rapid variations
It is computed by subtracting successive periods and averaging differences over the number of cycles Jitter- frequency variations Shimmer- Intensity variations
3. Perturbation: I. Jitter: a)ELx: Related to stability of the electronic circuit b)Eso: Casper J.K,Calton R.H(1998) More unstable than normals as reflected in larger jitter ratios. However directional jitter = normals, but the degree is much greater than normals.
Author Hoops & Noll(1969)
Method
Results
22 Eso Rainbow Passage 9 Eso Phonation/a/

Jitter(%):41.1%
Smith et al.(1978)
Jitter:0.62 to 5.13 msec Jitter ratio: 95.47
i. Jitter: C.TE: Equal or greater than normals Expected to be same to Eso as both use the same PE segment.
Author Robbins et al (1982) Kinshi and Amatsu(1986) Pindzola and Cain(1989) Rajashekar et al(1990) Measure %Jitter Laryngeal 0.77 TE 5.14 Eso 18.25
Mean jitter Jitter ratio %jitter
0.07 10 2.03
0.47 30 4.59
0.82 60 7.65
Single case Extent of fluct. Speed of fluct.
19Hz 36Hz 13.3Hz 14.6Hz
9.2Hz 14Hz 10.4Hz 16.5Hz
Rajashekar(1991) 20 TE and ESO Extent of fluct. Speed of fluct. Bertino et al(1996)
Jitter and Shimmer of TE is more similar to normal speakers than esophageal speakers.
ii. Shimmer:
a) Elx: reflects the electronic design and
construction of the instrument and not the inherent anatomical or physiological capabilities of the speaker
b) Eso: shimmer is greater than normals

while the directional shimmer is very similar to normal speakers
c) TE: both shimmer and directional shimmer are

greater in TE than normals
ii. Shimmer
Author Method Task Laryngeal TE Eso
Robbins (1982)
Shimmer ratio
/a/
0.43
10.55
24.15
Robbins (1984)
Mean shimmer
/a/
0.3dB
0.80dB
1.90dB
Rajashekhar (1991)
20 TE, 20 Eso Extent of fluct. Speed of fluct.
6.8dB 28.4dB 3.8dB 3.3dB
OVERVIEW
Phonational range: It is the largest range of F0 a patient can produce. Intensity range: The range of intensities a person can produce from the softest to the loudest
i.
Frequency range
Filter & Hyman(1975): Frequency range of 80Hz for 20 Eso speakers
ii. Intensity range

Singer (1983): Intensity range of 20-29dB for 4 TE speakers Robbins (1984): Normals: interquartile intensity range of 13.6dB TE: 13.8dB Eso: 10.9dB
OVERVIEW
Voice Onset Time
It is the difference between the release of a complete articulatory constriction and the onset of phonation (Lisker & Abramson 1967). It is a useful acoustic cue for the voiced voiceless distinction.
5. TEMPORAL CHARACTERISTICS i. VOT: the physical characteristics of neoglottis such as myoelastic and motor control properties are responsible for VOT in alaryngeal speakers.
Author Klor & Milanu (1980)
Method VOT for prevocalic stop consonants laryngeal, Eso, Staffien neoglottis Eso and laryngeal speakers VOT in voiceless consonants Normals Eso and TE Normal and TE speakers Normals and Eso
Results Reduced VOT in alaryngeal speakers
Weinberg (1982)
Eso speakers are far less consistent than normals in effective variations in timing of voice onset Longer VOT laryngeal>TE>Eso
Robbins, Chrinsternsen & Kempster (1986) Santhosh kumar (1993) Sanyogeetha (1993)
Greater VOT in TE than normals (contrasts with Robbins, 1984) VOT for Eso not significantly different for /p/ /t/ /k/ not significant for /ph/ /th/
i. VOT Venkatraj Aithal(1997) Normals & TE VOT for /p/ /t/ /k/ and /th/ was longer in TE than normals in both initial and medial positions Slightly slighter VOT for TE for /b/ /d/ /g/ and /dh/ compared to normals in both initial and medial positions Listeners misidentified consonant voicing contrasts in Eso. He attributed this as a cause for reduced intelligibility Avg VOT associated with prevocalic voiceless stops of Eso was significantly shorter than normals
Sacco, Mann and Schultzl (1967); Maraball (1974) Crinstensen, Weinberg and Alfonso (1978)
Eso
VOT in a large no. of consonants
Rise Time and Fall Time
Koike & Von Leden (1969) defined rise time as the period extending from the onset of sound to the point at which the evelope amplitude reached the value of steady phonation. Fall Time is the period extending from the end of the envelope amplitude with steady phonation to the termination of phonation.
ii. Rising Time; Falling time in phonation

Author
Rajashekhar et al (1990)
Method
TE
Results
Greater RT and FT in TE. Attributed to more pressure required to initiate and sustain phonation in TE speakers
Santhosh Kumar (1993)
Normals and TE
RT for TE was shorter than normals TE showed longer FT than normals on /i/ and /u/ where as normals showed longer FT in /a/
iii. MPD Author Bags & Pine (1983) Results Longer PD in TE compared to Eso However MPD in TE is shorter than normals Attributed reduced MPD in TE to high airflow rates and poor digital occlusion of the stoma Poor MPD in Eso to limited air supply MPD Laryngeal: 22sec TE: 12sec Eso:6sec Lower mean MPD in TE compared to normals
Robbins (1984)
Robbins, Fisher, Bloom & Singer (1984)
Santhosh kumar (1993)
Vowel Duration
Vowels preceding voiced consonants in English are are of greater duration than those preceding voiceless consonants (House and Fairbanks, 1953).
iv. Vowel duration
Author
Method
Results
Chrinstensen & Weinberg (1976)
VD Normals and Eso
Longer VD in voiced for Eso as against the voiceless in normals
Robbins, Chrinstensen and Kempster (1986)
15 each normals, Eso and TE
Normals had shortest VD, Eso intermediate and the TE longest
Vowel duration
Author Hariprasad G.V.M (1992) Method Eso Results Alaryngeal speaker uses longer VD as a compensatory strategy to increase intelligibility of speech Eso had longer VD than normals for /a/ /o/ /u/ Shorter VD for /u/ /a/ following velar aspirates
Sanyogeetha (1993)
Normal and Eso
Longer VD in TE speakers attributed to Pulmonary air as a driving source Greater air pressure and sustained flow rates driving the neoglottis , producing slower decay in PE segment variation
v. Word duration
Author Method Results
Venkatraj Aithal (1997)
Laryngeal and TE TE used longer WD compared to Word reading task normals This is attributed to lack of timing control in initiation and termination of voice in TE speakers
vi. Rate of speech

ELx: slower (Merwin et al.,1985),this is because of the need to produce more precise articulation to maintain an acceptable level of intelligibility
Eso: read slower than normals. Rates b/w 100-115wpm which is about 60-70% of the rate of normal speakers. Eso spend about 30-45% in silence.
Author
Results
Snidecor & Curry Eso: group average of 113wpm (1960)
Filter & Hyman (1975)

Sanyogeetha (1993)
2.5 syllable per second for a good Eso speaker

Ros was less in Eso compared to normals
vi. Rate of speech TE: read slower than normals but faster than Eso. Their slow rate reflects difficulty in controlling the PE segment and the need to articulate precisely.
Author Singer (1983) Pauloski et al (1987) Method 4 TE TE Duck bill Vs Low Pressure TE TE Results 96-136 wpm(faster rate compared to Eso) High ROS with low pressure prosthesis 2.86 syllables per second Fast rate of speech ranging from 2.6 to 3.6 syllable per second in TE speakers
Sedory et al (1989) Robbins (1984) Sedory (1989)
vi.Rate of speech across groups Author Method Laryngeal 182.5wpm Eso 117.7wpm TE 132.4wpm
Bags & Sentences Pine (1983) Robbins et Rainbow al (1984) passage Veena. K. D (1998) 5 each normals, Eso, TE
172.8wpm
99.1wpm
127.5wpm
5.43 1.85 3.44 syllables per syllables per syllables per second second second
Words per breath: Average words per breath for normal is 12.47 (Snidecor and Curry, 1960). A significant difference b/w TE and Eso Syllable per breath: Rajashekhar(1991): Eso: 3, TE: 46
Pause time:
Eso: 30-40% in silence Frequent need to recharge air Better Eso speakers shorter PT TE: 10-30% in silence
Pause time
Author Method Laryngeal Eso TE
Robbins (1984) Rainbow passage
0.62
0.65
0.89
viii. Total duration: Normals < TE < Eso slow ROS, longer pauseses, frequent pauses in Eso
OVERVIEW
Formant frequencies
First two formants are the most important features in the recognition of vowel sounds (Liberman & Cooper, 1952).
1.Formant Structures: Eso:

Snidecore(1968): irregular striations Weinberg(1982): elevated formant frequency
Author
Method
Results Higher except /o/ /u/ in Eso
Sanyogeetha N, Eso (1993) Mean F1, F2, F3 for vowels /a/ /i/ /u/ /o/ and /e/ Hariprasad N and Eso (1992)
Space between formants increase, speech intelligibility decreased
1.Formant Structures:
TE: Author Method Results
Christensen and Weinberg (1976)
Vowels TE
Wider space between formants

TE, reduced F3
Santhosh Kumar (1993) TE /a/ /i/ /u/ /e/ /o/ Venkatraj Aithal (1997) TE 10 vowels
Higher higher Fo, F2 and F3
Hammberg & Nord(1989)
N TE
Alaryngeal voice had weaker Fo than F1
2. LTAS:
Author Horii & Hughes (1972) Method N & Eso Results Eso: flattened but less than whispered speech Flat Spectral max: 425 to 500 Hz Reduced Alfa ratio(higher energy at high freq due to noise in Eso) TE Alfa matchable
Weinberg (1980)
N& Eso
Rajashekhar et al (1990) N, Eso, TE speech
OVERVIEW
II. Perceptual characteristics: 1. Pitch:

Elx: Eso: low pitch Shipp(1967): the more the pitch approximated normal the more accepted Weinberg (1973): listeners rated vocal pitch- freq. reason for perceiving abnormal Keith.R.L., Darley.F.L., 1994: higher the pitch, more the variations, more acceptability TE: low not as low as Eso
2. Loudness:
Eso:
lower Hyman (1955) & Mc Kinley(1960): good Eso Loudness was 6-7dB below normals Different noise: kluncking, stoma noise, articulatory additions TE and ELx: normal
3. Quality:
ELx: mechanical Eso: Bennett & Weinberg (1973):listeners frequently felt that the quality did not sound normal TE: as laryngitis or cold
OVERVIEW
III. Prosody in alaryngeal speech: 1. Intonation and Stress:
Weinberg (1980)
i. TE were able to control Fo duration ii. Intensity and Stress as like normals but change in freq is discontinuous iii. TE and Eso- produce stress syllable but not on the same syllable iv. Intonation contrast were seen in laryngeal, TE and Eso, but ELx- not able to achieve these intonation distinctions Sanyogeetha (1993): Eso=N, but the Eso not continuous due to poor control PE segment
OVERVIEW
Intelligibility& acceptability
Clinical utility of any alaryngeal voicing techniques lies in its intelligibility and acce[tability. 2 methods 1. Descriptive labeling- as poor, average, good &excellent 2. Developmental rating scales Eg: Wepmans seven level descriptive rating scale ranging from no speech to automatic speech
IV. Intelligibility and Acceptibility: 1. Intelligibility:
Reduced Intensity due to variability in vowel formants, resulting in confusion (Snidecor, 1968) Articulation: laryngectomy does alter articulatory systems(e.g.,totally hyoid bone removed)
Diedrich (1968): 1. more continuous movement of tongue and shorter articulatory contact compared to pre operatively 2. Intrusion gesture by tongue constrain coarticulatory
effects
ELx: 30-90% Eso:
Mean word I:54.9%-78.5% (Shames,1963) The major detriments are: inability to maintain voicing, to produce pressure consonants (voiceless stops), fricatives, affricates
TE: most intelligible of the three forms
Difficulty with pressure consonants Miralles & Cervera (1995): good intelligibility with low pressure prosthesis
Intelligibility-
Author Kalb & Carpenter(1981)
Method Elx Eso Clark & Elx Stemple(1982) Eso Rajashekhar et Eso al(1990) TE Rajashekhar N (1991) Eso TE Hariprasad (1992) N Eso TE
Results Equal I in Eso and Elx Discrimination in noise: ELx> Eso

Eso: 70% TE:97% 99.1% 79.6% 88.3% 99.2% 43.4% 75.8%
2. Acceptability
A preferred voice must be acceptable but an acceptable voice may not be preferred In general, excellent TE are preferred over excellent Eso All alaryngeal speech modes are acceptable if the speaker is proficient in the mode of speaking The acceptability does not depend on the age of the speaker Clements et al.,1997: TE- generally more satisfied with the quality of their speech and with their ability to communicate over telephone.

Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ACOUSTICAL AND PERCEPTUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ALARYNGEAL SPEECH

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN BASLP,MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Its unit is Hertz (Hz)

Can be measured during sustained phonation or during connected speech

I. Electro larynx: depends on the instrument (100 to 200 Hz)

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

III. TEP: commonly aperiodic Damste(1958)

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

SFF i. Electro larynx: depends on the instrument ii. Esophageal speech:

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

2. Vocal intensity A. Elx:

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

4 each laryngeal, Eso& TE

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Debruyne et al. (1994)

5 each normals Eso and TE

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Pertubation refers to the rapid variations

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Author Hoops & Noll(1969)

22 Eso Rainbow Passage 9 Eso Phonation/a/

Jitter:0.62 to 5.13 msec Jitter ratio: 95.47

Mean jitter Jitter ratio %jitter

Single case Extent of fluct. Speed of fluct.

19Hz 36Hz 13.3Hz 14.6Hz

9.2Hz 14Hz 10.4Hz 16.5Hz

Rajashekar(1991) 20 TE and ESO Extent of fluct. Speed of fluct. Bertino et al(1996)

b) Eso: shimmer is greater than normals

c) TE: both shimmer and directional shimmer are

20 TE, 20 Eso Extent of fluct. Speed of fluct.

6.8dB 28.4dB 3.8dB 3.3dB

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

ii. Intensity range

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Voice Onset Time

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Author Klor & Milanu (1980)

Results Reduced VOT in alaryngeal speakers

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

VOT in a large no. of consonants

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Rise Time and Fall Time

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

ii. Rising Time; Falling time in phonation

Santhosh Kumar (1993)

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Robbins, Fisher, Bloom & Singer (1984)

Santhosh kumar (1993)

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

iv. Vowel duration

Chrinstensen & Weinberg (1976)

VD Normals and Eso

Longer VD in voiced for Eso as against the voiceless in normals

Robbins, Chrinstensen and Kempster (1986)

15 each normals, Eso and TE

Normals had shortest VD, Eso intermediate and the TE longest

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Normal and Eso

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN