The Relationship between Temporal Aspects of Oral-Nasal Balance and Classification of Velopharyngeal Status in Speakers with Cleft Palate

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether temporal patterns of oral-nasal balance differentiate speakers with cleft palate who exhibit adequate and inadequate velopharyngeal function.

Design

The Nasal Accelerometric Vibrational Index (NAVI) was used to measure the time course and amplitude of oral-nasal balance during the productions of syllables, words, and sentences. The measures obtained include mean amplitude, time integral (area under the curve), absolute duration, relative duration, rise time, and fall time.

Participants

The subjects for this study were 20 children with repaired cleft palates with or without cleft lip. Ten children (aged 5 through 18 years) were assigned to the velopharyngeal competence (VPC) group (normal oral-nasal resonance, no nasal emission of air). Ten children (aged 3 through 19) were assigned to the velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) group (hypernasal speech, velopharyngeal gap observed via nasal endoscopy).

Results

Both mean amplitude and time integral of NAVI were greater in the VPI group than in the VPC group (p < .01). Absolute duration and relative duration of the NAVI signal were greater in the VPI group (p < .01). NAVI rise time was shorter in the VPI group (p < .01), and NAVI fall time was longer in the VPI group (p < .01). The amplitude measures contributed the most to discrimination of speaker group, but the durational measures become increasingly influential as a function of a speech task.

Conclusions

Although amplitude of nasalization may have the strongest perceptual salience in classification of velopharyngeal status, the temporal component may exert greater influence during more complex speech tasks.

Keywords

accelerometry cleft palate hypernasality velopharyngeal insufficiency

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Carney

P.J.

Sherman

Severity of nasality in three selected speech tasks.

J Speech Hear Res. 1971; 14: 396–407.

Curtis

J.F.

The acoustics of nasalized speech.

Cleft Palate J. 1970; 7: 380–396.

Dalston

R.M.

Warren

D.W.

Comparison of TONAR II, pressure-flow, andlistener judgments of hypernasality in the assessment of velopharyngeal function.

Cleft Palate J. 1986; 23: 108–115.

Dalston

R.M.

Warren

D.W.

Dalston

E.T.

The temporal characteristics of aerodynamic phenomena associated with patients manifesting varying degrees of velopharyngeal adequacy.

Folia Phoniatr. 1991a; 43: 226–233.

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.

Daniel

H.J.

Nasality ratings of single words, phrases, andrunning speech samples obtained from cleft palate children.

Folia Phoniatr. 1971; 23: 41–49.

Fant

Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. The Hague: Mouton; 1960.

Fletcher

S.G.

“Nasalance” vs. listener judgements of nasality.

Cleft Palate J. 1976; 13: 31–44.

Fletcher

S.G.

Theory and instrumentation for quantitative measurement of nasality.

Cleft Palate J. 1970; 7: 601–609.

10.

Folkins

J.W.

Issues in speech motor control and their relation to the speech of individuals with cleft palate.

Cleft Palate J. 1985; 22: 106–122.

11.

Hardin

M.A.

Van Demark

D.R.

Morris

H.L.

Payne

M.M.

Correspondence between nasalance scores and listener judgments of hypernasality and hyponasality.

Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992; 29: 346–351.

12.

Horii

An accelerometric approach to nasality measurement: a preliminary report.

Cleft Palate J. 1980; 17: 254–261.

13.

Horii

An accelerometric measure as a physical correlate of perceived hypernasality in speech.

J Speech Hear Res. 1983; 26: 476–480.

14.

Horii

Lang

J.E.

Distributional analyses of an index of nasal coupling (HONC) in simulated hypernasal speech.

Cleft Palate J. 1981; 18: 279–285.

15.

House

A.S.

Stevens

K.N.

Analog studies of the nasalization of vowels.

J Speech Hear Dis. 1956; 21: 218–232.

16.

Jones

D.L.

Folkins

J.W.

Morris

H.L.

Speech production time and judgments of disordered nasalization in speakers with cleft palate.

J Speech Hear Res. 1991; 33: 458–466.

17.

Moore

W.H.

Sommers

R.K.

Phonetic contexts: their effects on perceived nasality in cleft palate speakers.

Cleft Palate J. 1973; 10: 72–83.

18.

Redenbaugh

M.A.

Reich

A.R.

Correspondence between an accelerometric nasal/voice ratio and listeners' direct magnitude estimations of hypernasality.

J Speech Hear Res. 1985; 28: 273–281.

19.

Reich

A.R.

Redenbaugh

M.A.

Relation between nasal/voice accelerometric values and interval estimates of hypernasality.

Cleft Palate J. 1985; 22: 237–241.

20.

Shelton

R.L.

Knox

A.W.

Arndt

W.B.

Elbert

The relationship between nasality scale values and oral and nasal sound pressure level.

J Speech Hear Res. 1967; 26: 476–480.

21.

Spriestersbach

D.C.

Powers

G.R.

Nasality in isolated vowels and connected speech of cleft palate speakers.

J Speech Hearing Res. 1959; 2: 40–45.

22.

Warren

D.W.

Dalston

R.M.

Trier

W.C.

Holder

M.B.

A pressure-flow technique for quantifying temporal patterns of palatopharyngeal closure.

Cleft Palate J. 1985; 22: 11–19.

23.

Watterson

McFarlane

S.C.

Wright

D.S.

The relationship between nasalance and nasality in children with cleft palate.

J Comm Dis. 1993; 26: 13–28.

24.

Zimmermann

G.N.

Karnell

M.P.

Rettaliata

Articulatory coordination and the clinical profile of two cleft palate speakers.

J Phonetics. 1984; 12: 297–306.