JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.32 591-599 September 1989.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pauloski, B. R.
Right arrow Articles by Blom, E. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pauloski, B. R.
Right arrow Articles by Blom, E. D.

Statistical Differentiation Of Tracheoesophageal Speech Produced under Four Prosthetic/Occlusion Speaking Conditions

Barbara Roa Pauloski 1
Hilda B. Fisher 1
Gail B. Kempster 2

Eric D. Blom 3

1 Northwestern University
2 Governors State University
3 Head and Neck Surgery Associates, Indianapolis

Twelve male and 12 female total laryngectomy patients who received the tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP) as a means of vocal rehabilitation served as subjects for this investigation. Recordings were made of these subjects' speech produced with four prosthetic/occlusion conditions: (1) duckbill prosthesis with tracheostoma valve; (2) duckbill prosthesis with digital occlusion of the tracheostoma; (3) low pressure prosthesis with tracheostoma valve; and (4) low pressure prosthesis with digital occlusion. Speech tasks consisted of three trials of maximum phonation time on // and reading of a 98-word standard passage. Acoustic analysis of the recorded speech samples included a total of 34 frequency, intensity, temporal, and noise measures? Eight acoustic measures (words per minute, harmonics-to-noise ratio, percent jitter, intensity range during vowel phonation, percent periodic phonation, mean intensity during reading, directional jitter, and directional shimmer) were chosen as dependent variables for a repeated measures MANOVA. The overall repeated measures MANOVA, a set of complex contrasts, and paired t tests revealed that TEP speech produced with the low pressure prosthesis was significantly different from that produced with the duckbill prosthesis on a weighted linear combination of the eight acoustic variables. Tracheoesophageal voice produced with a low pressure prosthesis had greater amounts of periodic phonation than tracheoesophageal voice produced with a duckbill prosthesis. The use of a tracheostoma valve did not have a significant impact on the subset of acoustic measures used in the repeated measures MANOVA.

KEY WORDS: tracheoesophageal, prosthesis, laryngectomy, multivariate, rehabilitation

Submitted on April 27, 1988
Accepted on February 14, 1989







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1989 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.