Spectrographic Differences between Tracheal-sophageal and Esophageal Voice

Abstract

In order to evaluate the results of voice and speech rehabilitation after total laryngectomy some acoustic parameters (fundamental frequency, waveform perturbation) were examined in 18 total laryngectomy patients. Eight of these subjects had previously been surgically rehabilitated with a trachealesophageal phonatory valve while 10 had been submitted to esophageal speech rehabilitation. Analysis of results has shown that trachealesophageal voices are more likely to provide a stable fundamental frequency; there is also a tendency toward more clearly defined harmonics; jitter and shimmer are more similar to the values of normal subjects compared with those observed in esophageal speech. Such results seem to depend on a more regular vibration pattern in the pharyngealesophageal segment, due to the more efficient expiratory flow in trachealesophageal speech. Moreover we were able to demonstrate a correlation between the objective parameters evaluated and the subjective score on speech acceptability.

Voice restoration after circumferential pharyngolaryngectomy with free jejunum repair

“…Acoustic analysis of the voice confirmed that our patients have a lower F0 and a wider range of F0 than reported for patients who had a total laryngectomy and were rehabilitated with tracheo-esophageal shunt phonation [1,11,13]. At the same time jitter, shimmer and HNR were worse and showed a higher standard deviation than has been reported for tracheo-esophageal speakers submitted to total laryngectomy [1,4,15].…”

“…At the same time jitter, shimmer and HNR were worse and showed a higher standard deviation than has been reported for tracheo-esophageal speakers submitted to total laryngectomy [1,4,15]. These effects may be due to the "wetness" of the voice which interferes with the vibration of the jejunum walls and to the autonomous peristalsis of the jejunum that reduces pitch control during sustained phonation.…”

“…gibility of speech 1 3 3 3 3 2 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 4 5 4 4 5 5 6 3 4 4 4 M ± SD 4 ± 0.89 4.17 ± 0.75 4.17 ± 0.98 4.33 ± 0.82 better than the values for subjective judgements of tracheoesophageal speakers who underwent only a total laryngectomy published by Bertino et al [1], and fall between the values for subjective analysis of total laryngectomy and total pharyngolaryngectomy patients obtained by Mendelsohn et al [11]. In our opinion, this difference obviously depends on the different groups of naive listeners, but it is probably also due to our intensive speech rehabilitation program.…”

Acoustic analysis of the voice in phonatory fistuloplasty after total laryngectomy

“…The value of this parameter was slightly lower for the phonatory prosthesis than for esophageal speech, although there were no significant differences between the two, which is in line with other observations. 17 were obtained when shimmer was compared with the harmonics/noise ratio; hence we can affirm that phonatory prosthesis speech and esophageal speech do not differ from each other. Logically, in both groups of patients who had undergone laryngectomy the "neoglottis," or new vibratory element, is similar and consists of the folds of the esophageal mucosa in the new pharyngoesophageal segment reconstructed after surgery.…”

Acoustic Signal Typing for Evaluation of Voice Quality in Tracheoesophageal Speech

“…The mean fundamental frequency of 104 Hz found in this study is comparable with the mean fundamental frequency of normal male speakers, who have fundamental frequencies around 110 Hz. 5 Fundamental frequencies for tracheoesophageal speech found in other studies are 115 Hz, 5 83 Hz, 3 92 Hz, 12 between 50 Hz and 110 Hz, 2 and between 33 Hz and 121 Hz. 4 Although the mean fundamental frequency of normal male speech (110 Hz) and tracheoesophageal speech is comparable in male patients (109 Hz on average), for female patients the fundamental frequency (115 Hz on average) is obviously too low in comparison with that of normal female speech (220 Hz).…”