Perceptual Evaluation and Acoustic Analysis of Pneumatic Artificial Larynx
Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.
Author Contributions: Jie Jie Xu, study design, data collection, writer; Xi Chen, study design, data collection, writer; Mei Ping Lu, data collection, statistical analysis; Ming Zhe Qiao, data collection.
Disclosures: Competing interests: None.
Sponsorships: This project was supported in part by the Health Promotion Project of Jiangsu Province, China (XK200719).
To investigate the perceptual and acoustic characteristics of the pneumatic artificial larynx (PAL) and evaluate its speech ability and clinical value.
The study was conducted in the Voice Lab, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
Forty-six laryngectomy patients using the PAL were rated for intelligibility and fluency of speech. The voice signals of sustained vowel /a/ for 40 healthy controls and 42 successful patients using the PAL were measured by a computer system. The acoustic parameters and sound spectrographs were analyzed and compared between the two groups.
Forty-two of 46 patients using the PAL (91.3%) acquired successful speech capability. The intelligibility scores of 42 successful PAL speakers ranged from 71 to 95 percent, and the intelligibility range of four unsuccessful speakers was 30 to 50 percent. The fluency was judged as good or excellent in 42 successful patients, and poor or fair in four unsuccessful patients. There was no significant difference in average fundamental frequency, maximum intensity, jitter, shimmer, and normalized noise energy (NNE) between 42 successful PAL speakers and 40 healthy controls, while the maximum phonation time (MPT) of PAL speakers was slightly lower than that of the controls. The sound spectrographs of the patients using the PAL approximated those of the healthy controls.
The PAL has the advantage of a high percentage of successful vocal rehabilitation. PAL speech is fluent and intelligible. The acoustic characteristics of the PAL are similar to those of a normal voice.
- 1, . Differences in speaking proficiencies in three laryngectomy groups. Arch Otolaryngol 1985; 111: 216–9.
- 2, , . Acceptability and intelligibility of tracheoesophageal speech. Arch Otolaryngol 1985; 111: 213–5.
- 3, . Predicting esophageal speech. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1984; 93: 318–22.
- 4, . Voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. Acta Otolaryngol Belg 1992; 46: 221–46.
- 5, , , et al. Primary voice restoration at laryngectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1985; 111: 182–7.
- 6, , , et al. Primary tracheoesophageal puncture for voice restoration. Am J Surg 1986; 152: 464–6.
- 7, , . Further experience with voice restoration after total laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1981; 90: 498–502.
- 8, , , et al. Speech restoration and complications of primary versus secondary tracheoesophageal puncture following total laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 1989; 99: 489–91.
- 9, . Voice restoration with low pressure Blom-Singer voice prosthesis after total laryngectomy. Yonsei Med J 2003; 44: 615–8.
- 10, , , et al. Primary versus secondary tracheoesophageal puncture for speech rehabilitation in total laryngectomy: long-term results with indwelling voice prosthesis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005; 133: 89–93.
- 11, , , et al. Postlaryngectomy voice restoration using a voice prosthesis: a single institution's ten-year experience. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003; 112: 1007–10.
- 12, , , et al. Voice rehabilitation with Provox2 voice prosthesis following total laryngectomy for laryngeal and hypopharyngeal carcinoma. Auris Nasus Larynx 2007; 34: 65–71.
- 13, , . Factors related to speech proficiency of the laryngectomized. J Speech Hear Disord 1963; 28: 273–87.
- 14, . Individual speaker influence on relative intelligibility of esophageal speech and artificial larynx speech. J Speech Hear Disord 1981; 46: 77–80.
- 15, . Acceptability ratings of tracheoesophageal speech. Laryngoscope 1988; 98: 394–7.
- 16, , , et al. Voice and speech after laryngectomy. Clin Linguist Phon 2006; 20: 195–203.
- 17, , , et al. Comparison of alaryngeal voice and speech. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 2004; 29: 87–91.
- 18, , , et al. Acoustical analysis and perceptual evaluation of tracheoesophageal prosthetic voice. J Voice 1998; 12: 239–48.
- 19, , , et al. Acoustic analysis of the voice in phonatory fistuloplasty after total laryngectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 122: 743–7.
- 20, , , et al. Sound spectrogram analysis in patients receiving Kawahara's surgical voice restoration for advanced carcinoma of the hypopharynx and cervical esophagus. Dis Esophagus 2007; 20: 42–6.