Advertisement

Acoustic Characterization of the Voice With a Tracheoesophageal Speech in Laryngectomized Patients. Similarities and Differences With the Laryngeal Voice

Published:December 21, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.11.017

      Summary

      Background

      Voice with tracheoesophageal speech (TES) is an effective, widely recognized option to restore the ability of oral communication to laryngectomized patients. In this study, we try to characterize the TES, taking account different variables and making an acoustic analysis of voice with TES versus laryngeal voice (LV).

      Methods

      We compare different acoustic and subjective variables like GRABS or VHI in 34 patients with TES and 31 controls with LV.

      Results

      Patients with TES reach a good quality of voice with F0, F1, F2, F3, Jitter, Shimmer, and Yanahigara test similar to control group. Furthermore, the subjective scales show a good perception of voice for patients and examiners.

      Conclusions

      Patients with tracheoesophageal voices show acceptable voice results, in many cases reaching to be near to controls with LV.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Voice
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Mięsikowska M
        Analysis of Polish vowels of tracheoesophageal speakers.
        J Voice. 2017; 31 (263.e5-263.e11)
        • Van Sluis KE
        • van der Molen L
        • van Son RJJH
        • et al.
        Objective and subjective voice outcomes after total laryngectomy: a systematic review.
        Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017; 275: 11-26
        • Van As-Brooks CJ
        • Koopmans-van Beinum FJ
        • Pols LCW
        • et al.
        Acoustic signal typing for evaluation of voice quality in tracheoesophageal speech.
        J Voice. 2006; 20: 355-368
        • Delgado-Hernández J
        • León-Gómez NM
        • Izquierdo-Arteaga LM
        • et al.
        Análisis cepstral de la voz normal y patológica en adultos españoles. Medida de la prominencia del pico cepstral suavizado en vocales sostenidas versus habla conectada.
        Acta Otorrinolaringológica Española. 2018; 69: 134-140
        • Brockmann-Bauser M
        • Drinnan MJ
        Routine acoustic voice analysis: time to think again?.
        Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011; 19: 165-170
        • Clapham R.
        • Martens J.
        • Van Son R.J.J.
        • et al.
        Computing scores of voice quality and speech intelligibility in tracheoesophageal speech for speech stimuli of varying lengths.
        Computer Speech and Language. 2016; 37: 1-10
        • Granda Membiela CM
        • Fernández Gutiérrez MJ
        • Mamolar Andrés S
        • et al.
        Laryngectomized voice rehabilitation: handicap, perception and acoustic analysis.
        Rev Logop Foniatr Audiol. 2016; 36: 127-134
        • Coffey MM
        • Tolley N
        • Howard D
        • et al.
        Evaluating the effect of different voice prostheses on alaryngeal voice quality.
        Laryngoscope. 2018; 128: 2460-2466
        • Debruyne F
        • Delaere P
        • Wouters J
        • et al.
        Acoustic analysis of tracheo-oesophageal versus oesophageal speech.
        J Laryngol Otol. 1994; 108: 325-328
        • Van As CJ
        • Hilgers FJM
        • Verdonck-de Leeuw IM
        • et al.
        Acoustical analysis and perceptual evaluation of tracheoesophageal prosthetic voice.
        J Voice. 1998; 12: 239-248
        • Moon JB
        • Weinberg B
        Aerodynamic and myoelastic contributions to tracheoesophageal voice production.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1987; 30: 387-395
        • Sisty NL
        • Weinberg B
        Formant frequency characteristics of esophageal speech.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1972; 15: 439-448
        • Maccallum JK
        • Cai L
        • Zhou L
        • et al.
        Acoustic analysis of aperiodic voice: perturbation and nonlinear dynamic properties in esophageal phonation.
        J Voice. 2009; 23: 283-290