Application of Linear Discriminant Analysis to the Nasometric Assessment of Resonance Disorders: A Pilot Study

Abstract

Objective

Nasalance scores have traditionally been used to assess hypernasality. However, resonance disorders are often complex, and hypernasality and nasal obstruction may co-occur in patients with cleft palate. In this study, normal speakers simulated different resonance disorders, and linear discriminant analysis was used to create a tentative diagnostic formula based on nasalance scores for nonnasal and nasal speech stimuli.

Materials and Methods

Eleven female participants were recorded with the Nasometer 6450 while reading nonnasal and nasal speech stimuli. Nasalance measurements were taken of their normal resonance and their simulations of hyponasal, hypernasal, and mixed resonance.

Results

A repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed a resonance condition–stimuli interaction effect (P < .001). A linear discriminant analysis of the participants' nasalance scores led to formulas correctly classifying 64.4% of the resonance conditions. When the hyponasal and mixed resonance conditions with obstruction of the less patent nostril were removed from the analysis, the resultant formulas correctly classified 88.6% of the resonance conditions.

Conclusion

The simulations produced distinctive nasalance scores, enabling the creation of formulas that predicted resonance condition above chance level. The preliminary results demonstrate the potential of this approach for the diagnosis of resonance disorders.

Keywords

hypernasality hyponasality mixed resonance nasalance nasometry resonance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bhutta

M.F.

Worley

G.A.

Harries

M.L.

“Hot potato voice” in peritonsillitis: a misnomer. J Voice. 2006; 20: 616–622.

Bressmann

Comparison of nasalance scores obtained with the Nasometer, the NasalView, and the OroNasal System. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005; 42: 423–433.

Bressmann

Klaiman

Fischbach

Same noses, different nasalance scores: data from normal subjects and cleft palate speakers for three systems for nasalance analysis. Clin Linguist Phon. 2006; 20: 163–170.

Bressmann

Sader

Whitehill

T.L.

Awan

S.N.

Zeilhofer

H.F.

Horch

H.H.

Nasalance distance and ratio: two new measures. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000; 37: 248–256.

Brunnegård

Lohmander

van Doorn

Comparison between perceptual assessments of nasality and nasalance scores. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2012; 47: 556–566.

Burns

R.P.

Burns

Business research methods and statistics using SPSS. 2009. Available at http://www.uk.sagepub.com/burns/website%20material/Chapter%2025%20-%20Discriminant%20Analysis.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2012.

Coston

G.N.

Friedman

VanLue

M.J.

Nasal airway considerations. In: Losee

J.E.

Kirschner

R.E.

, eds. Comprehensive Cleft Care. New York: McGraw Hill Medical; 2009: 803–810.

Dalston

Neiman

Gonzalez-Landa

Nasometric sensitivity and specificity: a cross-dialect and cross-culture study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993; 30: 285–291.

Dalston

R.M.

Warren

D.W.

Dalston

E.T.

A preliminary investigation concerning the use of nasometry in identifying patients with hyponasality and/ or nasal airway obstruction. J Speech Hear Res. 1991a; 34: 11–18.

10.

Dalston

R.M.

Warren

D.W.

Dalston

E.T.

Use of nasometry as a diagnostic tool for identifying patients with velopharyngeal impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991b; 28: 184–188.

11.

de Boer

G.L.

Bressmann

Comparison of nasalance scores obtained with the Nasometers 6200 and 6450. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014; 51: 90–97.

12.

Fletcher

S.G.

Nasalance vs. listener judgements of nasality. Cleft Palate J. 1976; 13: 31–44.

13.

Fukushiro

A.P.

Trindale

I.E.K.

Nasal airway dimensions of adults with cleft lip and palate: differences among cleft types. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005; 42: 396–402.

14.

Gildersleeve-Neumann

C.E.

Dalston

R.M.

Nasalance scores in noncleft individuals: why not zero?

Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001; 38: 106–111.

15.

Green

S.B.

Salkind

N.J.

Akey

T.M.

Using SPSS for Windows: Analysing and Understanding Data. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2000.

16.

Hardin

Van Denmark

Morris

Payne

Correspondence between nasalance scores and listener judgements of hypernasality and hyponasality. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992; 29: 346–351.

17.

Hixon

T.J.

Weismer

Hoit

J.D.

Preclinical speech science: Anatomy physiology acoustics perception. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2008.

18.

Karnell

M.P.

Hansen

Hardy

J.C.

Lavelle

W.L.

Markt

Nasality ratings and nasalance measurements as outcome indices for palatal lift management. Journal of Medical Speech Pathology. 2004; 12: 21–29.

19.

Keuning

K.H.

Wieneke

G.H.

Dejonckere

P.H.

Correlation between the perceptual rating of speech in Dutch patients with velopharyngeal insufficiency and composite measures derived from mean nasalance scores. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2004; 56: 157–164.

20.

Keuning

K.H.

Wieneke

G.H.

Van Wijngaarden

H.A.

Dejonckere

P.H.

The correlation between nasalance and a differentiated perceptual rating of speech in Dutch patients with velopharyngeal insufficiency. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002; 39: 277–284.

21.

Kuehn

D.P.

Moller

K.T.

Speech and language issues in the cleft palate population: the state of the art. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000; 37: 348–383.

22.

Kummer

Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Anomalies: Effects on Speech and Resonance. 2nd ed. New York: Delmar Cengage Learning; 2008.

23.

Kummer

Disorders of resonance and airflow secondary to cleft palate and/or velopharyngeal dysfunction. Semin Speech Lang. 2011; 32: 141–149.

24.

Kummer

A.W.

Billmire

D.A.

Myer

III . Hypertrophic tonsils: the effect on resonance and velopharyngeal closure. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993; 91: 608–611.

25.

Lewis

K.E.

Watterson

T.L.

Houghton

S.M.

The influence of listener experience and academic training on ratings of nasality. J Commun Disord. 2003; 36: 49–58.

26.

McWilliams

B.J.

Morris

H.L.

Shelton

R.L.

Cleft Palate Speech. 2nd ed. Burlington, Canada: BC Decker; 1990.

27.

Moon

J.B.

Evaluation of velopharyngeal function. In: Moller

K.T.

Glaze

L.E.

, eds. Cleft Lip and Palate: Interdisciplinary Issues and Treatment. 2nd ed. Austin, TX: Pro-ed Publishing; 2009: 313–376.

28.

Nellis

J.L.

Neiman

G.S.

Lehman

J.A.

Comparison of Nasometer and listener judgments of nasality in the assessment of velopharyngeal function after pharyngeal flap surgery. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992; 29: 157–163.

29.

Peterson-Falzone

S.J.

Hardin-Jones

M.A.

Karnell

M.P.

Cleft Palate Speech. 3rd ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Inc.; 2001.

30.

Principato

Ozenberger

Cyclical changes in nasal resistance. Arch Otolaryngol. 1970; 91: 71–77.

31.

Seaver

E.J.

Dalston

R.M.

Leeper

H.A.

Adams

L.E.

A study of nasometric values for normal nasal resonance. J Speech Hear Res. 1991; 34: 715–722.

32.

Sell

Harding

Grunwell

GOS.SP.ASS.'98: an assessment for speech disorders associated with cleft palate and/or velopharyngeal dysfunction (revised). Int J Lang Commun Disord. 1999; 34: 17–33.

33.

Shprintzen

R.J.

Lewin

M.L.

Croft

C.B.

A comprehensive study of pharyngeal flap surgery: tailor made flaps. Cleft Palate J. 1979; 16: 46–55.

34.

Stoksted

Rhinometric measurements for determination of the nasal cycle. Acta Otolaryngol. 1953; 109(suppl): 1–159.

35.

Sweeney

Sell

Relationship between perceptual ratings of nasality and nasometry in children/adolescents with cleft palate and/or velopharyngeal dysfuntion. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2008; 43: 265–282.

36.

Titze

I.R.

Principles of voice production. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1994.

37.

Van Lierde

K.M.

Luyten

Mortier

Tijskens

Bettens

Vermeersch

Overall intelligibility, articulation, resonance, voice and language in a child with Nager syndrome. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2011; 75: 270–276.

38.

Van Lierde

K.M.

Wuyts

F.L.

Bonte

Van Cauwenberge

The Nasality Severity Index: an objective measure of hypernasality based on a multiparameter approach (a pilot study). Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2007; 59: 31–38.

39.

Whitehill

T.L.

Lee

AS-Y

. Instrumental analysis of resonance in speech impairment. In: Ball

M.J.

Perkins

M.R.

Müller

Howard

, eds. The Handbook of Clinical Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing; 2008: 332–343.

40.

Whitehill

T.L.

Lee

A.S.Y.

Chun

J.C.

Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of hypernasality. J Speech Hear Res. 2002; 45: 80–88.

41.

Williams

R.G.

Eccles

Hutchings

The relationship between nasalance and nasal resistance to airflow. Acta Otolaryngol. 1990; 110: 443–449.