Acoustic studies of oral-nasal balance disorders to date have focused on hypernasality. However, in patients with cleft palate, nasal obstruction may also be present, so that hypernasality and hyponasality co-occur. In this study, normal speakers simulated different disorders of oral-nasal balance. Linear discriminant analysis was used to create a tentative diagnostic formula based on the long-term averaged spectra (LTAS) of the speech stimuli.
Materials and Methods
Eleven female participants were recorded while reading nonnasal and nasal speech stimuli. LTASs of the recordings were run for their normal oral-nasal balance and their simulations of hyponasal, hypernasal, and mixed oral-nasal balance. The amplitude values (in decibels) were extracted in 100-Hz intervals over a range of 4 kHz.
Results
A repeated-measures analysis of variance of the normalized amplitudes revealed a resonance condition–frequency band amplitude interaction effect (P < .001). A linear discriminant analysis of the participants’ LTAS led to formulas correctly classifying 80.7% of the oral-nasal balance conditions.
Conclusion
The simulations produced distinctive spectra enabling the creation of formulas that predicted the oral-nasal balance above chance level. Future research with speakers with oral-nasal balance disorders will be needed to investigate the potential of this approach for the clinical diagnosis of disorders of oral-nasal balance.
BaylisA., ChapmanK., WhitehillT.L.; The Americleft Speech Group. Validity and reliability of visual analog scaling for assessment of hypernasality and audible nasal emission in children with repaired cleft palate.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2015; 52: 660–670.
2.
BoersmaP., WeeninkD.Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.63, 2014. Available at http://www.praat.org/.
3.
BressmannT., KlaimanP., FischbachS.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.
4.
BrunnegårdK., LohmanderA., van DoornJ.Comparison between perceptual assessments of nasality and nasalance scores.Int J Lang Commun Disord.2012; 47: 556–566.
5.
BzochK.R.Measurement and assessment of categorical aspects of cleft palate language, voice and speech disorders. In: BzochK.R., ed. Communicative Disorders Related to Cleft Lip and Palate.3rd ed.Boston: Little Brown;1989: 137–173.
6.
ChenM.Y.Acoustic correlates of English and French nasalized vowels.J Acoust Soc Am.1997; 102: 2360–2370.
7.
ChenM.Y.Acoustic parameters of nasalized vowels in hearing-impaired and normal hearing speakers.J Acoust Soc Am.1995; 98: 2443–2453.
8.
DalstonR., NeimanG., Gonzalez-LandaG.Nasometric sensitivity and specificity: a cross-dialect and cross-culture study.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1993; 30: 285–291.
9.
DalstonR., SeaverE.Relative values of various standardized passages in the nasometric assessment of patients with velopharyngeal impairment.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1992; 29: 17–21.
10.
DalstonR.M., WarrenD.W., DalstonE.T.A preliminary investigation concerning the use of nasaometry in identifying patients with hyponasality and/ or nasal airway obstruction.J Speech Hear Res.1991a; 34: 11–18.
11.
DalstonR.M., WarrenD.W., DalstonE.T.Use of nasometery as a diagnostic tool for identifying patients with velopharyngeal impairment.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1991b; 28: 184–188.
12.
De BoerG.L., BressmannT.Application of linear discriminant analysis to the nasometric assessment of simulated resonance disorders: a pilot study.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2015; 52: 173–182.
13.
De BoerG.L., BressmannT.Comparison of nasalance scores obtained with the Nasometers 6200 and 6450.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2014; 51: 90–97.
14.
FletcherS.G.Nasalance vs. listener judgements of nasality.Cleft Palate J.1976; 13: 31–44.
15.
HardinM., Van DenmarkD., MorrisH., PayneM.Correspondence between nasalance scores and listener judgements of hypernasality and hyponasality.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1992; 29: 346–351.
HaapanenM-L. A simple clinical method of evaluating perceived hypernasality.Folia Phoniatr Logop.1991; 43: 122–132.
18.
HaapanenM-L, LiuL., HiltunenT., LeinonenL., KarhunenJ.Cul-desac hypernasality test with pattern recognition and LPC indices.Folia Phoniatr Logop.1996; 48: 35–43.
19.
JohnsonK.Acoustic and Auditory Phonetics.2nd ed.Oxford, UK: Blackwell;2012.
20.
KarnellM.P., HansenJ., HardyJ.C., LavelleW.L., MarktJ.Nasality ratings and nasalance measurements as outcome indices for palatal lift management.J Med Speech Pathol.2004; 12: 21–29.
21.
KataokaR., MichiK-I, OkabeK., MiuraT., YoshidaH.Spectral properties and quantitative evaluation of hypernasality in vowels.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1996; 33: 43–50.
22.
KataokaR., WarrenD.W., ZajacD.J., MayoR., LutzR.W.The relationship between spectral characteristics and perceived hypernasality in children.J Acoust Soc Am.2001; 109: 2181–2189.
23.
KeuningK.H., WienekeG.H., DejonckereP.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.
24.
KeuningK.H., WienekeG.H., Van WijngaardenH.A., DejonckereP.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.
25.
KuehnD.P., MollerK.T.Speech and language issues in the cleft palate population: the state of the art.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2000; 37: 348–383.
26.
KummerA.Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Anomalies: Effects on Speech and Resonance.2nd ed.New York: Delmar Cengage Learning;2008.
27.
KummerA.Disorders of resonance and airflow secondary to cleft palate and/or velopharyngeal dysfunction.Sem Speech Lang.2011; 32: 141–149.
28.
KummerA., ClarkS.L., RedleE.E., ThomsenL.L., BillmireD.A.Current practice in assessing and reporting speech outcomes of cleft palate and velopharyngeal surgery: a survey of cleft palate/craniofacial professionals.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2012; 49: 146–152.
29.
LeeAS-Y, CioccaV., WhitehillT.Spectral analysis of hypernaslity.J Med Speech Pathol.2004; 12: 173–177.
30.
LeeG-S, WangC-P, FuS.The evaluation of hypernasality in vowels using voice low tone and high tone ratio.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2009; 46: 47–52.
31.
LöfqvistA., ManderssonB.Long-time average spectrum of speech and voice analysis.Folia Phoniatr.1987; 39: 221–229.
32.
LohmanderA., WilladsenE., PerssonC., HenningssonG., BowdenM., HuttersB.Methodology for speech assessment in the Scandcleft project—an international randomized clinical trial on palatal surgery: experiences from a pilot study.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2009; 46: 347–362.
33.
LowellS.Y., ColtonR.H., KelleyR.T., HahnY.C.Spectral- and cepstral-based measures during continuous speech: capacity to distinguish dysphonia and consistency within a speaker.J Voice.2011; 25: e223–e232.
34.
McDonaldE., BakerH.K.Cleft palate speech: an integration of research and clinical observation.J Speech Hear Dis.1951; 16: 9–20.
MollK.L.Cineradiography in research and clinical studies of the velopharyngeal mechanism.Cleft Palate J.1964; 30: 391–397.
38.
NellisJ.L., NeimanG.S., LehmanJ.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.
39.
PrincipatoJ., OzenbergerJ.Cyclical changes in nasal resistance.Arch Otolaryngol.1970; 91: 71–77.
40.
StevensK.N.Articulatory-acoustic-auditory relationships. In: HardcastleW.J., LaverJ., eds. The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences.Oxford, UK: Blackwell;1997: 462–506.
41.
StevensK.N.Spectral prominences and phonetic distinctions in language.Speech Commun, 1985; 4: 137–144.
42.
StokstedP.Rhinometric measurements for determination of the nasal cycle.Acta Otolaryngol.1953; 109(suppl): 1–159.
43.
SundbergJ., NordstromP.Raised and lowered larynx—the effect on vowel formant frequencies. Speech Transmission Laboratory.Quarterly Progress and Status Report.1976; 17: 25–39.
44.
SweeneyT., SellD.Relationship between perceptual ratings of nasality and nasometry in children/adolescents with cleft palate and/or velopharyngeal dysfunction.Int J Lang Commun Disord.2008; 43: 265–282.
45.
TjadenK., SussmanJ., LiuG., WildingG.Long term average spectral measures of dysarthria and their relationship to perceived severity.J Med Speech Pathol.2010; 18: 125–132.
46.
VogelA.P., IbrahimH.M., ReillyS., KilpatrickN.A comparative study of two acoustic measures of hypernasality.J Speech Lang Hear Res.2009; 52: 1640–1651.
47.
WarrenD.W., DalstonR.M., MayoR.Aerodynamics of nasalization. In: HuffmanM.K., KrakowR.A., eds. Nasals, Nasalization and the Velum.San Diego, CA: Academic Press;1993: 119–146.
48.
WeismerG.Philosophy of research in motor speech disorders.Clin Linguist Phon.2006; 20: 315–349.
