Comparison of alaryngeal voice and speech

Abstract

The aim of the research was to compare voice and speech in three groups of alaryngeal speakers: 1) patients using esophageal speech, 2) patients with electro-acoustical speech aids and 3) patients with voice prostheses. Acoustic analysis and pronunciation tests were used for the analysis. Acoustic analysis included fundamental frequency, maximum phonation time, jitter, shimmer and intensity. Pronunciation parameters were: phonetic block duration, number of syllables in a phonetic block, rate of speech, maximum number of syllables in a phonetic block and rate of articulation in a maximal phonetic block. Our results demonstrated the advantages of tracheoesophageal puncture with implantation of a voice prosthesis over the other two techniques of alaryngeal speech. Voice and pronunciation with voice prostheses were closer to normal in many parameters: fundamental frequency, maximum phonation time, jitter, shimmer, duration of a phonetic block, number of syllables in a phonetic block, rate of speech and rate of articulation in maximal phonetic block.

Acoustic Analysis of Aperiodic Voice: Perturbation and Nonlinear Dynamic Properties in Esophageal Phonation

“…Using several parameters, studies have found esophageal voice to have characteristics indicative of significantly poorer quality than alternative forms of alaryngeal speech and normal speech. [2][3]5 However, studies using perturbation measures for analysis of extremely aperiodic voices such as esophageal voice seldom quantify the reliability of results.…”

“…Signalto-noise ratio, fundamental frequency, and intensity values were found to be lower and jitter and shimmer values were found to be higher in esophageal speech than in laryngeal speech. [2][3]5 However, recent research suggests that the validity of perturbation analysis is highly questionable when these measures are applied to aperiodic signals. [6][7] In contrast, nonlinear dynamic methods of acoustic analysis have shown potential to reliably quantify both periodic and aperiodic signals.…”

“…2 Air is deposited in the esophagus, and its controlled release leads to segment vibration and sound production. 3 Speech is produced by moving the articulators to mouth words in the normal manner. 4 The esophageal voice demonstrates perceptual qualities of harshness, hoarseness, gurgling, short phonation duration and low pitch and volume, 3 all of which are indicators of aperiodicity in voice.…”

“…3 Speech is produced by moving the articulators to mouth words in the normal manner. 4 The esophageal voice demonstrates perceptual qualities of harshness, hoarseness, gurgling, short phonation duration and low pitch and volume, 3 all of which are indicators of aperiodicity in voice. Perturbation analysis of this perceptual abnormality has been accomplished, with results confirming the severe irregularity of esophageal voices.…”

A new proposal for evaluation of the pharyngoesophageal segment and its relation with the narrow-band spectrogram in tracheoesophageal speakers

“…Lung air is directed toward the esophagus, through the vocal prosthesis, and the sound source vibrates, which is labeled as pharyngoesophageal segment (PES). Because this makes it possible to use the flow of the lung air, the TE voice approximates the speech fluency and speed of the laryngeal voice (6,7) . In the meantime, the irregular vibration of the PES, which is evident, generates a voice quality quite rough, with low pitch (8,9) and which is different, when compared with the laryngeal voice (10,11) .…”