No abstract

Twelve judges, with no previous exposure to laryngectomees, rated the speaking proficiencies of 33 laryngectomees divided into the following groups: 1. esophageal speakers (n=12); 2. electrolarynx speakers (n=11); and 3. tracheoesophageal puncture speakers (n=10). In addition, the speech of ten normal subjects was rated. Specific speaking parameters examined included voice quality, pitch, loudness, intelligibility, rate of speaking, visual presentation during speech, extraneous speaking noise, and overall communicative effectiveness. Multiple discriminant analyses performed on the ratings made by each judge revealed significant differences in ratings for various speaking parameters in the four subject groups. Results generally support the stance that tracheoesophageal speech is perceived as superior to communication with either an electrolarynx or with traditional esophageal speech, even though it is not viewed as comparable to normal voice.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract