acoustical and perceptual characteristics of alaryngeal speech

7/27/2019 Acoustical and Perceptual Characteristics of Alaryngeal Speech

1/59

ACOUSTICAL AND

PERCEPTUAL

CHARACTERISTICS OF

ALARYNGEAL SPEECH

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHNBASLP,MASLP

KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN


2/59

OVERVIEW

I. Acoustic characteristics1. Fo in phonation, speech

2. Intensity

3. Perturbations

4. Range

5. Temporal aspects

VOT, RT FT in phonation, MPD, Vowel duration, Rate

of speech, Pause time, Total duration

6. Spectral aspects

Format structures, LTASII. Perceptual aspects

Pitch, Loudness, Quality

III. Prosody in alaryngeal speech

IV. Intelligibility and AcceptabilityKUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN


3/59

Why acoustics ?

It is contributed to the understanding of

Acoustic output of specific physiologicprocesses

The feature that may contribute to variation inperceptual responses

The physical properties of speech that maysignal vocal deviancy



4/59

OVERVIEWI. Acoustic characteristics

1. Fo in phonation, speech2. Intensity

3. Perturbations

4. Range

5. Temporal aspectsVOT, RT FT in phonation, MPD, Vowel

duration, Rate of speech, Pause time, Total duration

6. Spectral aspects






5/59

Fundamental frequency

Fundamental frequency of vibration reflects thevibrating rate of the vocal folds

Its unit is Hertz (Hz)

Can be measured during sustained phonation or duringconnected speech



6/59

I. Acoustical aspects1. Fo in phonation

I.Electro larynx: depends on the instrument (100 to 200 Hz)

II. Esophageal speech:Hammberg & Nord(1989) difficult

due to low value and aperiodic nature

Ranges from29.37Hz (Perry & Tikofsky, 1965) to86.50 (Horri, 1982)

Weinberg(1980) normal pattern of high Fo with

high vowels; higher Fo in females than males-morphology of PE segment

(females-smaller and thinner)



7/59


8/59


1. Fo in phonation, Speech2. Intensity

3. Perturbations

4. Range

5. Temporal aspectsVOT, RT FT in phonation, MPD, Vowel duration,

Rate of speech, Pause time, Total duration

6. Spectral aspects






9/59

2. SFF

i. Electro larynx: depends on the instrument

ii. Esophageal speech: 57.40Hz (Weinberg&Benett, 1972) to 77.10

(Robbins et al., 1984)

SFF is 1 octave lower in males and 2 in females Slavin & Ferrand(1995) even proficient speaker had

difficulty controlling Fo during speech therefore highvariability than normals



10/59

iii. TEP: 72.73 (Moon & Weinberg, 1987) to 108.60 (Trudeau &

Qi, 1990)

Closer to laryngeal speakers atleast for male speakers Less variability than Eso although there is



11/59



3. Perturbations4. Range5. Temporal aspects

VOT, RT FT in phonation, MPD, Vowel duration,Rate of speech, Pause time, Total duration6. Spectral aspects


Pitch, Loudness, QualityIII. Prosody in alaryngeal speechIV. Intelligibility and Acceptability



12/59

Intensity

It is a reflection of the acoustic power producedby the vibrating vocal folds

Intensity is expressed in decibels (dB)

Can be measured using sustained vowel orconnected speech



13/59

2. Vocal intensity

A. Elx: Average ranges from 75 to 85 dB (typical of

normals)

Depends on the instrument

B. Eso:Average range of 62.4dB

Below 6-10 dB of normals (Hoops andNoll,1969; Snidecor and Isshiki, 1965)



14/59

C. TEP:

Author Method Results

Bags & Pine

(1983)

4 each laryngeal, Eso& TE Larger Intensity in TEP

speakers due to greaterIntraoral pressure

Singer(1983) Eso & TE Considerable lower Intensityin Eso

Blood(1984) Laryngeal & TE High Intensity with TEspeakers

Robbins et al.(1984) 15 normals, Eso, TE

Sustained vowels

Paragraph reading

Sustained vowels

N: 76.9 dBSPL

Eso: 74 dBSPL

TE: 88 dBSPL

Paragraph reading

N: 69.3d BSPL

Eso: 59.3 dBSPL

TE: 79.4 dBSPLKUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN


15/59

C. TEP:


Rajashekhar (1991) Eso & TEPhonation of /a/

Speech

/a/Eso: 13.6dBSPL

TE: 16.4dBSPL

Speech

Eso: 34.7dBSPLTE: 39.1dBSPL

Debruyne et al. (1994) 12 TE

12 Eso

Vowel

Eso: 79.7dBSPL

TE: 65dBSPL

Veena. K. D.,(1998) 5 each normals Eso andTE

N: 72.3dBSPL

Eso 35.5dBSPL

TE: 32.6dBSPL



16/59


1. Fo in phonation, speech

2. Intensity

3. Perturbations

4. Range

5. Temporal aspects

VOT, RT FT in phonation, MPD, Vowel duration,Rate of speech, Pause time, Total duration

6. Spectral aspects

Format structures, LTAS

II. Perceptual aspects





17/59

Pertubation refers to the rapid

variations

It is computed by subtracting successive periodsand averaging differences over the number ofcycles

Jitter- frequency variations

Shimmer- Intensity variations



18/59

3. Perturbation:

I. Jitter:

a)ELx: Related to stability of the electronic circuitb)Eso: Casper J.K,Calton R.H(1998)

More unstable than normals as reflected in larger jitter ratios.However directional jitter = normals,but the degree is much greater than normals.


Hoops & Noll(1969) 22 Eso

Rainbow Passage

Jitter(%):41.1%

Smith et al.(1978) 9 Eso

Phonation/a/

Jitter:0.62 to 5.13 msec

Jitter ratio: 95.47



19/59

i. Jitter: C.TE: Equal or greater than normalsExpected to be same to Eso as both use the same PE segment.

Author Measure Laryngeal TE Eso

Robbins et al

(1982)

%Jitter 0.77 5.14 18.25

Kinshi and

Amatsu(1986)

Mean jitter

Jitter ratio

0.07

10

0.47

30

0.82

60

Pindzola and

Cain(1989)

%jitter 2.03 4.59 7.65

Rajashekar

et al(1990)

Single case

Extent of fluct.

Speed of fluct.

19Hz

36Hz

9.2Hz

14Hz

Rajashekar(1991) 20 TE and ESO

Extent of fluct.

Speed of fluct.

13.3Hz

14.6Hz

10.4Hz

16.5Hz

Bertino et

al(1996)

Jitter and Shimmer of TE is more similar to normal speakers than esophageal

speakers.



20/59

ii. Shimmer:

a) Elx: reflects the electronic design andconstruction of the instrument and not the

inherent anatomical or physiological capabilities

of the speaker

b) Eso: shimmer is greater than normalswhile the directional shimmer is very similar to

normal speakersc) TE: both shimmer and directional shimmer are

greater in TE than normals



21/59

ii. ShimmerAuthor Method Task Laryngeal TE Eso

Robbins (1982) Shimmer ratio /a/ 0.43 10.55 24.15

Robbins (1984) Mean shimmer /a/ 0.3dB 0.80dB 1.90dB

Rajashekhar

(1991)

20 TE, 20 Eso

Extent of fluct.

Speed of fluct.

- -

6.8dB

28.4dB

3.8dB

3.3dB



22/59



3. Perturbations

4. Range

5. Temporal aspectsVOT, RT FT in phonation, MPD, Vowel duration,

Rate of speech, Pause time, Total duration

6. Spectral aspects







23/59

Phonational range: It is the largest range of F0 apatient can produce.

Intensity range: The range of intensities a personcan produce from the softest to the loudest



24/59

i. Frequency range

Filter & Hyman(1975): Frequencyrange of 80Hz

for 20 Eso speakers

ii. Intensity range

Singer (1983): Intensity range of 20-29dB for 4 TE

speakers Robbins (1984):

Normals: interquartile intensity range of 13.6dB

TE: 13.8dBEso: 10.9dB



25/59

OVERVIEW

I. Acoustic characteristics1. Fo in phonation, speech2. Intensity3. Perturbations4. Range5. Temporal aspects

VOT, RT FT in phonation, MPD, Vowelduration, Rate of speech, Pause time, Total duration

6. Spectral aspects


Pitch, Loudness, QualityIII. Prosody in alaryngeal speechIV. Intelligibility and Acceptability



26/59

Voice Onset Time

It is the difference between the release of acomplete articulatory constriction and the onsetof phonation (Lisker & Abramson 1967).

It is a useful acoustic cue for the voicedvoiceless distinction.



27/59


5. TEMPORAL CHARACTERISTICS


28/59

i. VOT: the physical characteristics of neoglottis such as myoelastic and motor control

properties are responsible for VOT in alaryngeal speakers.


Klor & Milanu (1980) VOT for prevocalicstop consonantslaryngeal, Eso,Staffien neoglottis

Reduced VOT in alaryngeal speakers

Weinberg (1982) Eso and laryngealspeakers

Eso speakers are far less consistent thannormals in effective variations in timing

of voice onset

Robbins,

Chrinsternsen &

Kempster (1986)

VOT in voicelessconsonants

Normals Eso andTE

Longer VOT

laryngeal>TE>Eso

Santhosh kumar(1993)

Normal and TEspeakers

Greater VOT in TE than normals(contrasts with Robbins, 1984)

Sanyogeetha (1993) Normals and Eso VOT for Eso not significantly differentfor /p/ /t/ /k/ not significant for /ph/

/th

/KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN


29/59

i. VOT

Venkatraj

Aithal(1997)

Normals & TE VOT for /p/ /t/ /k/ and /th/ was longer inTE than normals in both initial and medialpositions

Slightly slighter VOT for TE for /b/ /d/ /g/and /dh/ compared to normals in both initialand medial positions

Sacco, Mann and

Schultzl (1967);

Maraball (1974)

Eso Listeners misidentified consonant voicingcontrasts in Eso.

He attributed this as a cause for reducedintelligibility

Crinstensen,

Weinberg and

Alfonso (1978)

VOT in a large no.of consonants

Avg VOT associated with prevocalic voicelessstops of Eso was significantly shorter thannormals



30/59

Rise Time and Fall Time

Koike & Von Leden (1969) defined rise time asthe period extending from the onset of sound tothe point at which the evelope amplitude

reached the value of steady phonation.

Fall Time is the period extending from the endof the envelope amplitude with steady

phonation to the termination of phonation.



31/59

ii. Rising Time; Falling time in phonation


Rajashekhar et

al (1990)

TE Greater RT and FT in TE. Attributed to morepressure required to initiate and sustain

phonation in TE speakers

Santhosh

Kumar (1993)

Normals and TE RT for TE was shorter than normals

TE showed longer FT than normals on /i/ and/u/ where as normals showed longer FT in /a/



32/59

iii. MPD

Author Results

Bags & Pine (1983) Longer PD in TE compared to Eso

However MPD in TE is shorter thannormals

Robbins (1984) Attributed reduced MPD in TE to

high airflow rates and

poor digital occlusion of the stoma

Poor MPD in Eso to limited air supply

Robbins, Fisher, Bloom & Singer (1984) MPD

Laryngeal: 22secTE: 12sec

Eso:6sec

Santhosh kumar (1993) Lower mean MPD in TE compared tonormals



33/59

Vowel Duration

Vowels preceding voiced consonants in Englishare are of greater duration than those precedingvoiceless consonants (House and Fairbanks,

1953).



34/59

iv. Vowel duration


Chrinstensen &

Weinberg (1976)

VD

Normals and Eso

Longer VD in voiced for Eso asagainst the voiceless in normals

Robbins,

Chrinstensen and

Kempster (1986)

15 each normals,Eso and TE

Normals had shortest VD, Esointermediate and the TE longest



35/59

Vowel duration

Longer VD inTE speakersattributed to

Pulmonaryair as a drivingsource

Greater airpressure andsustained flowrates driving

the neoglottis ,producing

slower decayin PE segmentvariation


Hariprasad

G.V.M (1992)

Eso Alaryngeal speakeruses longer VD as acompensatorystrategy to increaseintelligibility ofspeech

Sanyogeetha

(1993)

Normal and Eso Eso had longer VDthan normals for/a/ /o/ /u/

Shorter VD for /u//a/ following velaraspirates



36/59

v. Word duration


Venkatraj

Aithal (1997)

Laryngeal and TE

Word reading task

TE used longer WD compared to

normalsThis is attributed to lack of timingcontrol in initiation and termination ofvoice in TE speakers


i R f h


37/59

vi. Rate of speech

Author Results

Snidecor & Curry

(1960)

Eso: group average of 113wpm

Filter & Hyman

(1975)

2.5 syllable per second for a good Esospeaker

Sanyogeetha

(1993)

Ros was less in Eso compared to normals

ELx: slower (Merwin et al.,1985),this is because of the need to produce

more precise articulation to maintain an acceptable level of intelligibility

Eso: read slower than normals. Rates b/w 100-115wpm which is about60-70% of the rate of normal speakers.

Eso spend about 30-45% in silence.



38/59

vi. Rate of speech

TE: read slower than normals but faster than Eso.Their slow rate reflects difficulty in controlling the PE

segment and the need to articulate precisely.


Singer (1983) 4 TE 96-136 wpm(faster rate

compared to Eso)Pauloski et al (1987) TE

Duck bill Vs LowPressure

High ROS with lowpressure prosthesis

Sedory et al (1989) TE 2.86 syllables per second

Robbins (1984)

Sedory (1989)

TE Fast rate of speechranging from 2.6 to 3.6syllable per second in TEspeakers



39/59

vi.Rate of speech across groups

Author Method Laryngeal Eso TE

Bags &

Pine (1983)

Sentences 182.5wpm 117.7wpm 132.4wpm

Robbins et

al (1984)

Rainbowpassage

172.8wpm 99.1wpm 127.5wpm

Veena. K.

D (1998)

5 each

normals,Eso, TE

5.43

syllables persecond

1.85

syllables persecond

3.44

syllables persecond



40/59

Words per breath:

Average words per breath for normal is 12.47(Snidecor and Curry, 1960).

A significant difference b/w TE and Eso

Syllable per breath:

Rajashekhar(1991): Eso: 3, TE: 46



41/59

Pause time:

Eso: 30-40% in silenceFrequent need to recharge airBetter Eso speakersshorter PT

TE: 10-30% in silence



42/59

Pause time

viii. Total duration:Normals < TE < Eso

slow ROS, longer pauseses, frequentpauses in Eso

Author Method Laryngeal Eso TE

Robbins (1984) Rainbowpassage

0.62 0.65 0.89



43/59


1. Fo in phonation, speech2. Intensity3. Perturbations4. Range5. Temporal aspects

VOT, RT FT in phonation, MPD, Vowel duration,Rate of speech, Pause time, Total duration6. Spectral aspects


II. Perceptual aspectsPitch, Loudness, Quality

III. Prosody in alaryngeal speechIV. Intelligibility and Acceptability



44/59

Formant frequencies

First two formants are the most importantfeatures in the recognition of vowel sounds(Liberman & Cooper, 1952).


1 Formant Structures:


45/59

1.Formant Structures:

Eso:Snidecore(1968): irregular striationsWeinberg(1982): elevated formant frequency


Sanyogeetha

(1993)

N, Eso

Mean F1, F2,

F3 for vowels/a/ /i/ /u//o/ and /e/

Higher except /o/ /u/ in Eso

Hariprasad

(1992)

N and Eso Space between formants increase,

speech intelligibility decreased



46/59

1.Formant Structures:TE:


Christensen and

Weinberg (1976)

Vowels

TE

Wider space betweenformants

Santhosh Kumar (1993) TE/a/ /i/ /u/ /e/ /o/

TE, reduced F3

Venkatraj Aithal (1997) TE

10 vowels

Higher higher Fo, F2 andF3

Hammberg &

Nord(1989)

N

TE

Alaryngeal voice hadweaker Fo than F1



47/59

2. LTAS:


Horii & Hughes (1972) N & Eso Eso: flattened but lessthan whispered speech

Weinberg (1980) N& Eso Flat

Spectral max: 425 to 500Hz

Rajashekhar et al (1990) N, Eso, TE speech Reduced Alfa ratio(higherenergy at high freq due tonoise in Eso)

TE Alfa matchable


OVERVIEW


48/59



2. Intensity

3. Perturbations

4. Range

5. Temporal aspects


6. Spectral aspects






II P l h i i


49/59

II. Perceptual characteristics:

1. Pitch:

Elx: Eso: low pitch

Shipp(1967): the more the pitch approximated normalthe more accepted

Weinberg (1973): listeners rated vocal pitch- freq.reason for perceiving abnormal

Keith.R.L., Darley.F.L., 1994: higher the pitch, morethe variations, more acceptability

TE: low not as low as Eso


2 L d


50/59

2. Loudness: Eso: lower

Hyman (1955) & Mc Kinley(1960): good EsoLoudness was 6-7dB below normals

Different noise: kluncking, stoma noise, articulatoryadditions

TE and ELx: normal

3. Quality:

ELx: mechanical

Eso: Bennett & Weinberg (1973):listeners frequently felt

that the quality did not sound normal

TE: as laryngitis or cold


OVERVIEW


51/59



2. Intensity

3. Perturbations

4. Range

5. Temporal aspects


6. Spectral aspects






III P d i l l h


52/59

III. Prosody in alaryngeal speech:

1. Intonation and Stress:

Weinberg (1980)i. TE were able to control Fo duration

ii. Intensity and Stress as like normals but change in freq isdiscontinuous

iii. TE and Eso- produce stress syllable but not on the samesyllable

iv. Intonation contrast were seen in laryngeal, TE and Eso,but ELx- not able to achieve these intonation distinctions

Sanyogeetha (1993): Eso=N, but the Eso not continuousdue to poor control PE segment


OVERVIEW


53/59



2. Intensity

3. Perturbations

4. Range

5. Temporal aspects


6. Spectral aspects







54/59

Intelligibility& acceptability

Clinical utility of any alaryngeal voicing techniques lies inits intelligibility and acce[tability.

2 methods

1. Descriptive labeling- as poor, average, good&excellent

2. Developmental rating scales

Eg: Wepmans seven level descriptive ratingscale ranging from no speech to automatic speech


IV I t lli ibilit d A tibilit


55/59

IV. Intelligibility and Acceptibility:

1. Intelligibility:

Reduced Intensity due to variability in vowel formants,resulting in confusion (Snidecor, 1968)

Articulation: laryngectomy does alter articulatory

systems(e.g.,totally hyoid bone removed)Diedrich (1968):

1. more continuous movement of tongue and shorter

articulatory contact compared to pre operatively

2. Intrusion gesture by tongue constrain coarticulatory

effects


EL 30 90%


56/59

ELx: 30-90%

Eso:

Mean word I:54.9%-78.5% (Shames,1963) The major detriments are: inability to maintain voicing, to

produce pressure consonants (voiceless stops), fricatives,affricates

TE: most intelligible of the three forms Difficulty with pressure consonants

Miralles & Cervera (1995): good intelligibility with lowpressure prosthesis


Intelligibility-


57/59


Kalb &

Carpenter(1981)

Elx

Eso

Equal I in Eso and Elx

Clark &

Stemple(1982)

Elx

Eso

Discrimination in noise:

ELx> Eso

Rajashekhar et

al(1990)

Eso

TE

Eso: 70%

TE:97%

Rajashekhar

(1991)

N

Eso

TE

99.1%

79.6%

88.3%Hariprasad (1992) N

Eso

TE

99.2%

43.4%

75.8%KUNNAMPALLIL GEJO JOHN


58/59

2. Acceptability

A preferred voice must be acceptable but an acceptable voicemay not be preferred

In general, excellent TE are preferred over excellent Eso

All alaryngeal speech modes are acceptable if the speaker isproficient in the mode of speaking

The acceptability does not depend on the age of the speaker

Clements et al.,1997: TE- generally more satisfied with thequality of their speech and with their ability to communicateover telephone.



59/59

acoustical and perceptual characteristics of alaryngeal speech

Documents