Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 59
ACOUSTICAL AND PERCEPTUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ALARYNGEAL SPEECH KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN BASLP,MASLP
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
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
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
Why acoustics ? It is contributed to the understanding of  Acoustic output of specific
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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

OVERVIEW I. Acoustic characteristics 1. Fo in phonation, speech 2. Intensity 3. Perturbations 4. Range
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
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
Fundamental frequency  Fundamental frequency of vibration reflects the vibrating rate of the vocal folds
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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

I. Acoustical aspects 1. Fo in phonation I. Electro larynx: depends on the instrument (100
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 males-
morphology of PE segment
(females-smaller and thinner)

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

III. TEP: commonly aperiodic Damste(1958)  Due to variation in subneoglottic pressure  Length and
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 speech-
regular vibratory pattern in PE segment due to more
efficient respiratory drive in TEP speech

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

OVERVIEW I. Acoustic characteristics 1. Fo in phonation, Speech 2. Intensity 3. Perturbations 4. Range
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
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
2. SFF i. Electro larynx: depends on the instrument ii. Esophageal speech:  57.40Hz (Weinberg&Benett,
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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

iii. TEP:  72.73 (Moon & Weinberg, 1987) to 108.60 (Trudeau & Qi, 1990) 
iii. TEP:
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

to laryngeal speakers atleast for male speakers  Less variability than Eso although there is KUNNAMPALLIL
to laryngeal speakers atleast for male speakers  Less variability than Eso although there is KUNNAMPALLIL
to laryngeal speakers atleast for male speakers  Less variability than Eso although there is KUNNAMPALLIL
to laryngeal speakers atleast for male speakers  Less variability than Eso although there is KUNNAMPALLIL

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

OVERVIEW I. Acoustic characteristics 1. Fo in phonation, speech 2. Intensity 3. Perturbations 4. Range
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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Intensity  It is a reflection of the acoustic power produced by the vibrating vocal
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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

2. Vocal intensity A. Elx:  Average ranges from 75 to 85 dB (typical of
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
Average range of 62.4dB
Below 6-10 dB of normals (Hoops and
Noll,1969; Snidecor and Isshiki, 1965)
range of 62.4dB  Below 6-10 dB of normals (Hoops and Noll,1969; Snidecor and Isshiki, 1965)

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

C. TEP:
C. TEP:
Author
Author
Method
Method
Results
Results
Bags & Pine
Bags & Pine
(1983)
(1983)
Singer(1983)
Singer(1983)
4 each laryngeal, Eso& TE
4 each laryngeal, Eso& TE
Larger Intensity in TEP speakers due to greater Intraoral pressure Sustained vowels N: 76.9 dBSPL
Larger Intensity in TEP
speakers due to greater
Intraoral pressure
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
Considerable lower Intensity in Eso High Intensity with TE speakers
Considerable lower Intensity
in Eso
High Intensity with TE
speakers
Eso & TE
Eso & TE
Blood(1984)
Blood(1984)
Laryngeal & TE
Laryngeal & TE
Robbins et al.(1984)
Robbins et al.(1984)
& TE Blood(1984) Laryngeal & TE Robbins et al.(1984) 15 normals, Eso, TE Sustained vowels Paragraph

15 normals, Eso, TE Sustained vowels Paragraph reading

Laryngeal & TE Robbins et al.(1984) 15 normals, Eso, TE Sustained vowels Paragraph reading KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

C. TEP: Author Method Results Rajashekhar (1991) Eso & TE Phonation of /a/ Speech /a/
C. TEP:
Author
Method
Results
Rajashekhar (1991)
Eso & TE
Phonation of /a/
Speech
/a/
Eso: 13.6dBSPL
TE: 16.4dBSPL
Speech
Eso: 34.7dBSPL
TE: 39.1dBSPL
Debruyne et al. (1994)
12
TE
12
Eso
Vowel
Eso: 79.7dBSPL
TE: 65dBSPL
Veena. K. D.,(1998)
5 each normals Eso and
TE
N: 72.3dBSPL
Eso 35.5dBSPL
TE: 32.6dBSPL

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

OVERVIEW
OVERVIEW
I. Acoustic characteristics 1. Fo in phonation, speech 2. Intensity 3. Perturbations 4. Range 5.
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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Pitch, Loudness, Quality III. Prosody in alaryngeal speech IV. Intelligibility and Acceptability KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
Pertubation refers to the rapid variations  It is computed by subtracting successive periods and
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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

3. Perturbation:

I. Jitter: a)ELx: Related to stability of the electronic circuit b)Eso: Casper J.K,Calton R.H(1998) However
I. Jitter:
a)ELx: Related to stability of the electronic circuit
b)Eso: Casper J.K,Calton R.H(1998)
However directional jitter = normals,
but the degree is much greater than normals.
More unstable than normals as reflected in larger jitter ratios. Author Method Results Hoops &
More unstable than normals as reflected in larger jitter ratios.
Author
Method
Results
Hoops & Noll(1969)
22 Eso
Rainbow Passage
Jitter(%):41.1%
Smith et al.(1978)
9 Eso
Phonation/a/
Jitter:0.62 to 5.13 msec
Jitter ratio: 95.47

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

i. Jitter: C.TE: Equal or greater than normals Expected to be same to Eso as

i. Jitter: C.TE: Equal or greater than normals Expected to be same to Eso as both use the same PE segment.

Expected to be same to Eso as both use the same PE segment. Author Measure Laryngeal
Author Measure Laryngeal TE Eso Robbins et al %Jitter 0.77 5.14 18.25 (1982) Kinshi and
Author
Measure
Laryngeal
TE
Eso
Robbins et al
%Jitter
0.77
5.14
18.25
(1982)
Kinshi and
Mean jitter
0.07
0.47
0.82
Amatsu(1986)
Jitter ratio
10
30
60
Pindzola and
%jitter
2.03
4.59
7.65
Cain(1989)
Rajashekar
et al(1990)
Single case
Extent of fluct.
Speed of fluct.
19Hz
9.2Hz
36Hz
14Hz
Rajashekar(1991)
20 TE and ESO
Extent of fluct.
Speed of fluct.
13.3Hz
10.4Hz
14.6Hz
16.5Hz
Bertino et
al(1996)
Jitter and Shimmer of TE is more similar to normal speakers than esophageal
speakers.

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

ii. Shimmer: a) Elx: reflects the electronic design and construction of the instrument and not
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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

ii. Shimmer Author Method Task Laryngeal TE Eso Robbins (1982) Shimmer ratio /a/ 0.43 10.55
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
3.8dB
28.4dB
3.3dB

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

OVERVIEW I. Acoustic characteristics 1. Fo in phonation, speech 2. Intensity 3. Perturbations 4. Range
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
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
Phonational range: It is the largest range of F 0 a patient can produce. 

Phonational range: It is the largest range of F 0 a patient can produce.

It is the largest range of F 0 a patient can produce.   Intensity range:

is the largest range of F 0 a patient can produce.   Intensity range: The
 Intensity range: The range of intensities a person can produce from the softest to
Intensity range: The range of intensities a person
can produce from the softest to the loudest

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

i. Frequency range  Filter & Hyman(1975): Frequency range of 80Hz for 20 Eso speakers
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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

OVERVIEW I. Acoustic characteristics 1. Fo in phonation, speech 2. Intensity 3. Perturbations 4. Range
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
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
Voice Onset Time  It is the difference between the release of a complete articulatory
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.

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

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 Method Results Klor & Milanu (1980)
properties are responsible for VOT in alaryngeal speakers.
Author
Method
Results
Klor & Milanu (1980)
VOT for prevocalic
stop consonants
laryngeal, Eso,
Staffien neoglottis
Reduced VOT in alaryngeal speakers
Weinberg (1982)
Eso and laryngeal
speakers
Robbins, Chrinsternsen & Kempster (1986)
Robbins,
Chrinsternsen &
Kempster (1986)
VOT in voiceless consonants Normals Eso and TE Normal and TE speakers
VOT in voiceless
consonants
Normals Eso and
TE
Normal and TE
speakers
consonants Normals Eso and TE Normal and TE speakers Eso speakers are far less consistent than
Eso speakers are far less consistent than normals in effective variations in timing of voice
Eso speakers are far less consistent than
normals in effective variations in timing
of voice onset

Longer VOT laryngeal>TE>Eso

timing of voice onset Longer VOT laryngeal>TE>Eso Santhosh kumar (1993) Greater VOT in TE than normals
Santhosh kumar (1993)
Santhosh kumar
(1993)
Greater VOT in TE than normals (contrasts with Robbins, 1984)
Greater VOT in TE than normals
(contrasts with Robbins, 1984)
Sanyogeetha (1993)
Sanyogeetha (1993)
Normals and Eso
Normals and Eso
VOT for Eso not significantly different for /p/ /t/ /k/ not significant for /p h
VOT for Eso not significantly different
for /p/ /t/ /k/ not significant for /p h /
/t h /
GEJO JOHN

KUNNAMPALLIL

…i. VOT Venkatraj Normals & TE Aithal(1997) VOT for /p/ /t/ /k/ and /th/ was
…i. VOT
Venkatraj
Normals & TE
Aithal(1997)
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
Sacco, Mann and
Schultzl (1967);
Maraball (1974)
Eso
Listeners misidentified consonant voicing
contrasts in Eso.
He attributed this as a cause for reduced
intelligibility
Crinstensen,
Weinberg and
VOT in a large no.
of consonants
Avg VOT associated with prevocalic voiceless
stops of Eso was significantly shorter than
Alfonso (1978)
normals

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Rise Time and Fall Time  Koike & Von Leden (1969) defined rise time as
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.

from the end of the envelope amplitude with steady phonation to the termination of phonation. KUNNAMPALLIL
from the end of the envelope amplitude with steady phonation to the termination of phonation. KUNNAMPALLIL

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

ii. Rising Time; Falling time in phonation
ii. Rising Time; Falling time in phonation
Author
Author
Method
Method
Results
Results
Rising Time; Falling time in phonation Author Method Results TE Rajashekhar et al (1990) Greater RT
TE
TE

Rajashekhar et al (1990)

phonation Author Method Results TE Rajashekhar et al (1990) Greater RT and FT in TE. Attributed
Greater RT and FT in TE. Attributed to more pressure required to initiate and sustain
Greater RT and FT in TE. Attributed to more
pressure required to initiate and sustain
phonation in TE speakers
required to initiate and sustain phonation in TE speakers Normals and TE RT for TE was
Normals and TE
Normals and TE
RT for TE was shorter than normals TE showed longer FT than normals on /i/
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/

Santhosh Kumar (1993)

FT than normals on /i/ and /u/ where as normals showed longer FT in /a/ Santhosh

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

iii. MPD
iii. MPD
Author
Author
Results
Results
Bags & Pine (1983)
Bags & Pine (1983)
Longer PD in TE compared to Eso However MPD in TE is shorter than normals
Longer PD in TE compared to Eso
However MPD in TE is shorter than
normals
compared to Eso However MPD in TE is shorter than normals Robbins (1984) Attributed reduced MPD
Robbins (1984)
Robbins (1984)
However MPD in TE is shorter than normals Robbins (1984) Attributed reduced MPD in TE to

Attributed reduced MPD in TE to high airflow rates and

Attributed reduced MPD in TE to high airflow rates and poor digital occlusion of the stoma
poor digital occlusion of the stoma Poor MPD in Eso to limited air supply Robbins,
poor digital occlusion of the stoma
Poor MPD in Eso to limited air supply
Robbins, Fisher, Bloom & Singer (1984)

MPD Laryngeal: 22sec TE: 12sec

Bloom & Singer (1984) MPD Laryngeal: 22sec TE: 12sec Eso:6sec Lower mean MPD in TE compared
Eso:6sec Lower mean MPD in TE compared to normals
Eso:6sec
Lower mean MPD in TE compared to
normals
Santhosh kumar (1993)
Santhosh kumar (1993)

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Vowel Duration  Vowels preceding voiced consonants in English are are of greater duration than
Vowel Duration
 Vowels preceding voiced consonants in English
are are of greater duration than those preceding
voiceless consonants (House and Fairbanks,
1953).

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

iv. Vowel duration
iv. Vowel duration
iv. Vowel duration Author Method Results Chrinstensen & Weinberg (1976) Longer VD in voiced for Eso
Author
Author
Method
Method
Results
Results
Chrinstensen & Weinberg (1976)
Chrinstensen &
Weinberg (1976)
Author Method Results Chrinstensen & Weinberg (1976) Longer VD in voiced for Eso as against the
Longer VD in voiced for Eso as against the voiceless in normals
Longer VD in voiced for Eso as
against the voiceless in normals

VD Normals and Eso

Eso as against the voiceless in normals VD Normals and Eso Robbins, 15 each normals, Eso
Robbins, 15 each normals, Eso and TE
Robbins,
15 each normals,
Eso and TE

Chrinstensen and Kempster (1986)

each normals, Eso and TE Chrinstensen and Kempster (1986) Normals had shortest VD, Eso intermediate and
Normals had shortest VD, Eso intermediate and the TE longest
Normals had shortest VD, Eso
intermediate and the TE longest

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Vowel duration
Vowel duration
Author Method Results Hariprasad G.V.M (1992) Eso Alaryngeal speaker uses longer VD as a compensatory
Author
Method
Results
Hariprasad
G.V.M (1992)
Eso
Alaryngeal speaker
uses longer VD as a
compensatory
strategy to increase
Longer VD in
TE speakers
attributed to
Pulmonary
air as a driving
intelligibility of
speech
Sanyogeetha
Normal and Eso
(1993)
Eso had longer VD
than normals for
source
Greater air
pressure and
sustained flow
rates driving
the neoglottis ,
/a/ /o/ /u/
producing
Shorter VD for /u/
/a/ following velar
aspirates
slower decay
in PE segment
variation

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

v. Word duration
v. Word duration
Author
Author
Method
Method
Results
Results
v. Word duration Author Method Results Venkatraj Aithal (1997) Laryngeal and TE Word reading task TE
Venkatraj Aithal (1997)
Venkatraj
Aithal (1997)
Laryngeal and TE Word reading task TE used longer WD compared to normals This is
Laryngeal and TE
Word reading task
TE used longer WD compared to
normals
This is attributed to lack of timing
control in initiation and termination of
voice in TE speakers

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

vi. Rate of speech
vi. Rate of speech
vi. Rate of speech ELx: slower (Merwin et al.,1985),this is because of the need to produce

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.

which is about 60-70% of the rate of normal speakers. Eso spend about 30-45% in silence.

Eso spend about 30-45% in silence.

Author Results Snidecor & Curry Eso: group average of 113wpm (1960) Filter & Hyman 2.5
Author
Results
Snidecor & Curry
Eso: group average of 113wpm
(1960)
Filter & Hyman
2.5 syllable per second for a good Eso
(1975)
speaker
Sanyogeetha
Ros was less in Eso compared to normals
(1993)
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
vi. Rate of speech TE: read slower than normals but faster than Eso. Their slow
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 Method Results Singer (1983) 4 TE 96-136 wpm(faster rate compared to Eso) Pauloski et
Author
Method
Results
Singer (1983)
4 TE
96-136 wpm(faster rate
compared to Eso)
Pauloski et al (1987)
TE
Duck bill Vs Low
Pressure
High ROS with low
pressure prosthesis
Sedory et al (1989)
TE
2.86 syllables per second
Robbins (1984)
Sedory (1989)
TE
Fast rate of speech
ranging from 2.6 to 3.6
syllable per second in TE
speakers

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

vi.Rate of speech across groups
vi.Rate of speech across groups
Author Method Laryngeal Eso TE Bags & Pine (1983) Sentences 182.5wpm
Author
Method
Laryngeal
Eso
TE
Bags &
Pine (1983)
Sentences
182.5wpm
Robbins et Rainbow al (1984) passage
Robbins et
Rainbow
al (1984)
passage
117.7wpm 132.4wpm 99.1wpm 127.5wpm 1.85 3.44 syllables per syllables per second second
117.7wpm
132.4wpm
99.1wpm
127.5wpm
1.85
3.44
syllables per
syllables per
second
second
172.8wpm
172.8wpm
Veena. K. 5 each D (1998) normals, Eso, TE
Veena. K.
5 each
D (1998)
normals,
Eso, TE
5.43 syllables per second
5.43
syllables per
second

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

 Words per breath: Average words per breath for normal is 12.47 (Snidecor and Curry,
 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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Pause time:
Pause time:
 Eso: 30-40% in silence Frequent need to recharge air Better Eso speakers – shorter
 Eso: 30-40% in silence
Frequent need to recharge air
Better Eso speakers – shorter PT
 TE: 10-30% in silence

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Pause time Author Method Laryngeal Eso TE Robbins (1984) Rainbow 0.62 0.65 0.89 passage viii.
Pause time
Author
Method
Laryngeal
Eso
TE
Robbins (1984)
Rainbow
0.62
0.65
0.89
passage
viii. Total duration:
Normals < TE < Eso
slow ROS, longer pauseses, frequent
pauses in Eso

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

OVERVIEW I. Acoustic characteristics 1. Fo in phonation, speech 2. Intensity 3. Perturbations 4. Range
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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Formant frequencies  First two formants are the most important features in the recognition of
Formant frequencies
 First two formants are the most important
features in the recognition of vowel sounds
(Liberman & Cooper, 1952).

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

1.Formant Structures: TE: Author
1.Formant Structures:
TE:
Author
Christensen and Weinberg (1976)
Christensen and
Weinberg (1976)
Method
Method
Vowels
Vowels
Results
Results
TE
TE
Santhosh Kumar (1993)
Santhosh Kumar (1993)
(1976) Method Vowels Results TE Santhosh Kumar (1993) Wider space between formants TE, reduced F3 Higher
Wider space between formants TE, reduced F3 Higher higher Fo, F2 and F3 Alaryngeal voice
Wider space between
formants
TE, reduced F3
Higher higher Fo, F2 and
F3
Alaryngeal voice had
weaker Fo than F1
Fo, F2 and F3 Alaryngeal voice had weaker Fo than F1 TE /a/ /i/ /u/ /e/

TE /a/ /i/ /u/ /e/ /o/

voice had weaker Fo than F1 TE /a/ /i/ /u/ /e/ /o/ Venkatraj Aithal (1997) TE
Venkatraj Aithal (1997) TE
Venkatraj Aithal (1997)
TE
10 vowels
10 vowels
N TE
N
TE
Hammberg & Nord(1989)
Hammberg &
Nord(1989)

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

2. LTAS:
2. LTAS:
Author
Author
Method
Method
Results
Results
Eso: flattened but less than whispered speech
Eso: flattened but less
than whispered speech
Flat Spectral max: 425 to 500 Hz Reduced Alfa ratio(higher energy at high freq due
Flat
Spectral max: 425 to 500
Hz
Reduced Alfa ratio(higher
energy at high freq due to

noise in Eso) TE Alfa matchable

energy at high freq due to noise in Eso) TE Alfa matchable Horii & Hughes (1972)
Horii & Hughes (1972) N & Eso
Horii & Hughes (1972)
N & Eso
Weinberg (1980)
Weinberg (1980)
N& Eso
N& Eso
& Hughes (1972) N & Eso Weinberg (1980) N& Eso Rajashekhar et al (1990) N, Eso,
Rajashekhar et al (1990) N, Eso, TE speech
Rajashekhar et al (1990)
N, Eso, TE speech

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

OVERVIEW I. Acoustic characteristics 1. Fo in phonation, speech 2. Intensity 3. Perturbations 4. Range
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
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
II. Perceptual characteristics: 1. Pitch:  Elx:  Eso: low pitch  Shipp(1967): the more
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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

2. Loudness:  Eso: lower  Hyman (1955) & Mc Kinley(1960): good Eso Loudness was
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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

OVERVIEW I. Acoustic characteristics 1. Fo in phonation, speech 2. Intensity 3. Perturbations 4. Range
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
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
III. Prosody in alaryngeal speech: 1. Intonation and Stress:  Weinberg (1980) i. TE were
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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

OVERVIEW
OVERVIEW
I. Acoustic characteristics 1. Fo in phonation, speech 2. Intensity 3. Perturbations 4. Range 5.
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

Pitch, Loudness, Quality III. Prosody in alaryngeal speech IV. Intelligibility and Acceptability KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

Pitch, Loudness, Quality III. Prosody in alaryngeal speech IV. Intelligibility and Acceptability KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
Intelligibility& acceptability Clinical utility of any alaryngeal voicing techniques lies in its intelligibility and
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: Wepman’s seven level descriptive rating
scale ranging from no speech to automatic speech

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

IV. Intelligibility and Acceptibility:
IV. Intelligibility and Acceptibility:


1. Intelligibility:

Reduced Intensity due to variability in vowel formants, resulting in confusion (Snidecor, 1968)
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.
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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

 ELx: 30-90%  Eso:  Mean word I:54.9%-78.5% (Shames,1963)  The major detriments are:
 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

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

 Intelligibility- Author Method Results Kalb & Elx Equal I in Eso and Elx Carpenter(1981)

Intelligibility-

Author Method Results Kalb & Elx Equal I in Eso and Elx Carpenter(1981) Eso Clark
Author
Method
Results
Kalb &
Elx
Equal I in Eso and Elx
Carpenter(1981)
Eso
Clark &
Elx
Discrimination in noise:
Stemple(1982)
ELx> Eso
Eso
Rajashekhar et
Eso
Eso: 70%
al(1990)
TE
TE:97%
Rajashekhar
N
99.1%
(1991)
Eso
79.6%
TE
88.3%
Hariprasad (1992)
N
99.2%
Eso
43.4%
TE
75.8%

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

2. Acceptability  A preferred voice must be acceptable but an acceptable voice may not
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.

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN