Upload
kunnampallil-gejo-john
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
1/59
ACOUSTICAL AND
PERCEPTUAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF
ALARYNGEAL SPEECH
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHNBASLP,MASLP
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
2/59
OVERVIEW
I. Acoustic characteristics1. 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, LTASII. Perceptual aspects
Pitch, Loudness, Quality
III. Prosody in alaryngeal speech
IV. Intelligibility and AcceptabilityKUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
3/59
Why acoustics ?
It is contributed to the understanding of
Acoustic output of specific physiologicprocesses
The feature that may contribute to variation inperceptual responses
The physical properties of speech that maysignal vocal deviancy
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
4/59
OVERVIEWI. Acoustic characteristics
1. Fo in phonation, speech2. Intensity
3. Perturbations
4. Range
5. Temporal aspectsVOT, RT FT in phonation, MPD, Vowel
duration, Rate of speech, Pause time, Total duration
6. Spectral aspects
Format structures, LTASII. Perceptual aspects
Pitch, Loudness, Quality
III. Prosody in alaryngeal speech
IV. Intelligibility and AcceptabilityKUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
5/59
Fundamental frequency
Fundamental frequency of vibration reflects thevibrating rate of the vocal folds
Its unit is Hertz (Hz)
Can be measured during sustained phonation or duringconnected speech
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
6/59
I. Acoustical aspects1. 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) to86.50 (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
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
7/59
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
8/59
OVERVIEWI. Acoustic characteristics
1. Fo in phonation, Speech2. Intensity
3. Perturbations
4. Range
5. Temporal aspectsVOT, RT FT in phonation, MPD, Vowel duration,
Rate of speech, Pause time, Total duration
6. Spectral aspects
Format structures, LTASII. Perceptual aspects
Pitch, Loudness, Quality
III. Prosody in alaryngeal speech
IV. Intelligibility and AcceptabilityKUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
9/59
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 highvariability than normals
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
10/59
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
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
11/59
OVERVIEWI. Acoustic characteristics
1. Fo in phonation, speech2. Intensity
3. Perturbations4. Range5. Temporal aspects
VOT, RT FT in phonation, MPD, Vowel duration,Rate of speech, Pause time, Total duration6. Spectral aspects
Format structures, LTASII. Perceptual aspects
Pitch, Loudness, QualityIII. Prosody in alaryngeal speechIV. Intelligibility and Acceptability
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
12/59
Intensity
It is a reflection of the acoustic power producedby the vibrating vocal folds
Intensity is expressed in decibels (dB)
Can be measured using sustained vowel orconnected speech
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
13/59
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 andNoll,1969; Snidecor and Isshiki, 1965)
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
14/59
C. TEP:
Author Method Results
Bags & Pine
(1983)
4 each laryngeal, Eso& TE Larger Intensity in TEP
speakers due to greaterIntraoral pressure
Singer(1983) Eso & TE Considerable lower Intensityin Eso
Blood(1984) Laryngeal & TE High Intensity with TEspeakers
Robbins et al.(1984) 15 normals, Eso, TE
Sustained vowels
Paragraph reading
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 dBSPLKUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
15/59
C. TEP:
Author Method Results
Rajashekhar (1991) Eso & TEPhonation of /a/
Speech
/a/Eso: 13.6dBSPL
TE: 16.4dBSPL
Speech
Eso: 34.7dBSPLTE: 39.1dBSPL
Debruyne et al. (1994) 12 TE
12 Eso
Vowel
Eso: 79.7dBSPL
TE: 65dBSPL
Veena. K. D.,(1998) 5 each normals Eso andTE
N: 72.3dBSPL
Eso 35.5dBSPL
TE: 32.6dBSPL
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
16/59
OVERVIEWI. 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 AcceptabilityKUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
17/59
Pertubation refers to the rapid
variations
It is computed by subtracting successive periodsand averaging differences over the number ofcycles
Jitter- frequency variations
Shimmer- Intensity variations
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
18/59
3. Perturbation:
I. Jitter:
a)ELx: Related to stability of the electronic circuitb)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 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
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
19/59
i. Jitter: C.TE: Equal or greater than normalsExpected to be same to Eso as both use the same PE segment.
Author Measure Laryngeal TE Eso
Robbins et al
(1982)
%Jitter 0.77 5.14 18.25
Kinshi and
Amatsu(1986)
Mean jitter
Jitter ratio
0.07
10
0.47
30
0.82
60
Pindzola and
Cain(1989)
%jitter 2.03 4.59 7.65
Rajashekar
et al(1990)
Single case
Extent of fluct.
Speed of fluct.
19Hz
36Hz
9.2Hz
14Hz
Rajashekar(1991) 20 TE and ESO
Extent of fluct.
Speed of fluct.
13.3Hz
14.6Hz
10.4Hz
16.5Hz
Bertino et
al(1996)
Jitter and Shimmer of TE is more similar to normal speakers than esophageal
speakers.
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
20/59
ii. Shimmer:
a) Elx: reflects the electronic design andconstruction of the instrument and not the
inherent anatomical or physiological capabilities
of the speaker
b) Eso: shimmer is greater than normalswhile the directional shimmer is very similar to
normal speakersc) TE: both shimmer and directional shimmer are
greater in TE than normals
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
21/59
ii. ShimmerAuthor 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
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
22/59
OVERVIEWI. Acoustic characteristics
1. Fo in phonation, speech2. Intensity
3. Perturbations
4. Range
5. Temporal aspectsVOT, 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 AcceptabilityKUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
23/59
Phonational range: It is the largest range of F0 apatient can produce.
Intensity range: The range of intensities a personcan produce from the softest to the loudest
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
24/59
i. Frequency range
Filter & Hyman(1975): Frequencyrange 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: 13.8dBEso: 10.9dB
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
25/59
OVERVIEW
I. Acoustic characteristics1. Fo in phonation, speech2. Intensity3. Perturbations4. Range5. Temporal aspects
VOT, RT FT in phonation, MPD, Vowelduration, Rate of speech, Pause time, Total duration
6. Spectral aspects
Format structures, LTASII. Perceptual aspects
Pitch, Loudness, QualityIII. Prosody in alaryngeal speechIV. Intelligibility and Acceptability
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
26/59
Voice Onset Time
It is the difference between the release of acomplete articulatory constriction and the onsetof phonation (Lisker & Abramson 1967).
It is a useful acoustic cue for the voicedvoiceless distinction.
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
27/59
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
5. TEMPORAL CHARACTERISTICS
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
28/59
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) VOT for prevocalicstop consonantslaryngeal, Eso,Staffien neoglottis
Reduced VOT in alaryngeal speakers
Weinberg (1982) Eso and laryngealspeakers
Eso speakers are far less consistent thannormals in effective variations in timing
of voice onset
Robbins,
Chrinsternsen &
Kempster (1986)
VOT in voicelessconsonants
Normals Eso andTE
Longer VOT
laryngeal>TE>Eso
Santhosh kumar(1993)
Normal and TEspeakers
Greater VOT in TE than normals(contrasts with Robbins, 1984)
Sanyogeetha (1993) Normals and Eso VOT for Eso not significantly differentfor /p/ /t/ /k/ not significant for /ph/
/th
/KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
29/59
i. VOT
Venkatraj
Aithal(1997)
Normals & TE VOT for /p/ /t/ /k/ and /th/ was longer inTE than normals in both initial and medialpositions
Slightly slighter VOT for TE for /b/ /d/ /g/and /dh/ compared to normals in both initialand medial positions
Sacco, Mann and
Schultzl (1967);
Maraball (1974)
Eso Listeners misidentified consonant voicingcontrasts in Eso.
He attributed this as a cause for reducedintelligibility
Crinstensen,
Weinberg and
Alfonso (1978)
VOT in a large no.of consonants
Avg VOT associated with prevocalic voicelessstops of Eso was significantly shorter thannormals
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
30/59
Rise Time and Fall Time
Koike & Von Leden (1969) defined rise time asthe period extending from the onset of sound tothe point at which the evelope amplitude
reached the value of steady phonation.
Fall Time is the period extending from the endof the envelope amplitude with steady
phonation to the termination of phonation.
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
31/59
ii. Rising Time; Falling time in phonation
Author Method Results
Rajashekhar et
al (1990)
TE Greater RT and FT in TE. Attributed to morepressure 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/
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
32/59
iii. MPD
Author Results
Bags & Pine (1983) Longer PD in TE compared to Eso
However MPD in TE is shorter thannormals
Robbins (1984) Attributed reduced MPD in TE to
high airflow rates and
poor digital occlusion of the stoma
Poor MPD in Eso to limited air supply
Robbins, Fisher, Bloom & Singer (1984) MPD
Laryngeal: 22secTE: 12sec
Eso:6sec
Santhosh kumar (1993) Lower mean MPD in TE compared tonormals
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
33/59
Vowel Duration
Vowels preceding voiced consonants in Englishare are of greater duration than those precedingvoiceless consonants (House and Fairbanks,
1953).
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
34/59
iv. Vowel duration
Author Method Results
Chrinstensen &
Weinberg (1976)
VD
Normals and Eso
Longer VD in voiced for Eso asagainst the voiceless in normals
Robbins,
Chrinstensen and
Kempster (1986)
15 each normals,Eso and TE
Normals had shortest VD, Esointermediate and the TE longest
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
35/59
Vowel duration
Longer VD inTE speakersattributed to
Pulmonaryair as a drivingsource
Greater airpressure andsustained flowrates driving
the neoglottis ,producing
slower decayin PE segmentvariation
Author Method Results
Hariprasad
G.V.M (1992)
Eso Alaryngeal speakeruses longer VD as acompensatorystrategy to increaseintelligibility ofspeech
Sanyogeetha
(1993)
Normal and Eso Eso had longer VDthan normals for/a/ /o/ /u/
Shorter VD for /u//a/ following velaraspirates
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
36/59
v. Word duration
Author Method Results
Venkatraj
Aithal (1997)
Laryngeal and TE
Word reading task
TE used longer WD compared to
normalsThis is attributed to lack of timingcontrol in initiation and termination ofvoice in TE speakers
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
i R f h
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
37/59
vi. Rate of speech
Author Results
Snidecor & Curry
(1960)
Eso: group average of 113wpm
Filter & Hyman
(1975)
2.5 syllable per second for a good Esospeaker
Sanyogeetha
(1993)
Ros was less in Eso compared to normals
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 about60-70% of the rate of normal speakers.
Eso spend about 30-45% in silence.
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
38/59
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 al (1987) TE
Duck bill Vs LowPressure
High ROS with lowpressure prosthesis
Sedory et al (1989) TE 2.86 syllables per second
Robbins (1984)
Sedory (1989)
TE Fast rate of speechranging from 2.6 to 3.6syllable per second in TEspeakers
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
39/59
vi.Rate of speech across groups
Author Method Laryngeal Eso TE
Bags &
Pine (1983)
Sentences 182.5wpm 117.7wpm 132.4wpm
Robbins et
al (1984)
Rainbowpassage
172.8wpm 99.1wpm 127.5wpm
Veena. K.
D (1998)
5 each
normals,Eso, TE
5.43
syllables persecond
1.85
syllables persecond
3.44
syllables persecond
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
40/59
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
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
41/59
Pause time:
Eso: 30-40% in silenceFrequent need to recharge airBetter Eso speakersshorter PT
TE: 10-30% in silence
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
42/59
Pause time
viii. Total duration:Normals < TE < Eso
slow ROS, longer pauseses, frequentpauses in Eso
Author Method Laryngeal Eso TE
Robbins (1984) Rainbowpassage
0.62 0.65 0.89
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
43/59
OVERVIEWI. Acoustic characteristics
1. Fo in phonation, speech2. Intensity3. Perturbations4. Range5. Temporal aspects
VOT, RT FT in phonation, MPD, Vowel duration,Rate of speech, Pause time, Total duration6. Spectral aspects
Format structures, LTAS
II. Perceptual aspectsPitch, Loudness, Quality
III. Prosody in alaryngeal speechIV. Intelligibility and Acceptability
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
44/59
Formant frequencies
First two formants are the most importantfeatures in the recognition of vowel sounds(Liberman & Cooper, 1952).
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
1 Formant Structures:
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
45/59
1.Formant Structures:
Eso:Snidecore(1968): irregular striationsWeinberg(1982): elevated formant frequency
Author Method Results
Sanyogeetha
(1993)
N, Eso
Mean F1, F2,
F3 for vowels/a/ /i/ /u//o/ and /e/
Higher except /o/ /u/ in Eso
Hariprasad
(1992)
N and Eso Space between formants increase,
speech intelligibility decreased
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
46/59
1.Formant Structures:TE:
Author Method Results
Christensen and
Weinberg (1976)
Vowels
TE
Wider space betweenformants
Santhosh Kumar (1993) TE/a/ /i/ /u/ /e/ /o/
TE, reduced F3
Venkatraj Aithal (1997) TE
10 vowels
Higher higher Fo, F2 andF3
Hammberg &
Nord(1989)
N
TE
Alaryngeal voice hadweaker Fo than F1
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
47/59
2. LTAS:
Author Method Results
Horii & Hughes (1972) N & Eso Eso: flattened but lessthan whispered speech
Weinberg (1980) N& Eso Flat
Spectral max: 425 to 500Hz
Rajashekhar et al (1990) N, Eso, TE speech Reduced Alfa ratio(higherenergy at high freq due tonoise in Eso)
TE Alfa matchable
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
OVERVIEW
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
48/59
OVERVIEWI. 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 AcceptabilityKUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
II P l h i i
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
49/59
II. Perceptual characteristics:
1. Pitch:
Elx: Eso: low pitch
Shipp(1967): the more the pitch approximated normalthe more accepted
Weinberg (1973): listeners rated vocal pitch- freq.reason for perceiving abnormal
Keith.R.L., Darley.F.L., 1994: higher the pitch, morethe variations, more acceptability
TE: low not as low as Eso
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
2 L d
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
50/59
2. Loudness: Eso: lower
Hyman (1955) & Mc Kinley(1960): good EsoLoudness was 6-7dB below normals
Different noise: kluncking, stoma noise, articulatoryadditions
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
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
51/59
OVERVIEWI. 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 AcceptabilityKUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
III P d i l l h
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
52/59
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 isdiscontinuous
iii. TE and Eso- produce stress syllable but not on the samesyllable
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 continuousdue to poor control PE segment
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
OVERVIEW
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
53/59
OVERVIEWI. 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 AcceptabilityKUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
54/59
Intelligibility& acceptability
Clinical utility of any alaryngeal voicing techniques lies inits intelligibility and acce[tability.
2 methods
1. Descriptive labeling- as poor, average, good&excellent
2. Developmental rating scales
Eg: Wepmans seven level descriptive ratingscale ranging from no speech to automatic speech
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
IV I t lli ibilit d A tibilit
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
55/59
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
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
EL 30 90%
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
56/59
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 lowpressure prosthesis
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
Intelligibility-
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
57/59
Author Method Results
Kalb &
Carpenter(1981)
Elx
Eso
Equal I in Eso and Elx
Clark &
Stemple(1982)
Elx
Eso
Discrimination in noise:
ELx> Eso
Rajashekhar et
al(1990)
Eso
TE
Eso: 70%
TE:97%
Rajashekhar
(1991)
N
Eso
TE
99.1%
79.6%
88.3%Hariprasad (1992) N
Eso
TE
99.2%
43.4%
75.8%KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
58/59
2. Acceptability
A preferred voice must be acceptable but an acceptable voicemay not be preferred
In general, excellent TE are preferred over excellent Eso
All alaryngeal speech modes are acceptable if the speaker isproficient 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 thequality of their speech and with their ability to communicateover telephone.
KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN
7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech
59/59