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 accessOne-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 VoiceAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
REFERENCES
- Analysis of Polish vowels of tracheoesophageal speakers.J Voice. 2017; 31 (263.e5-263.e11)
- Objective and subjective voice outcomes after total laryngectomy: a systematic review.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017; 275: 11-26
- Acoustic signal typing for evaluation of voice quality in tracheoesophageal speech.J Voice. 2006; 20: 355-368
- 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
- Routine acoustic voice analysis: time to think again?.Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011; 19: 165-170
- 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
- Laryngectomized voice rehabilitation: handicap, perception and acoustic analysis.Rev Logop Foniatr Audiol. 2016; 36: 127-134
- Evaluating the effect of different voice prostheses on alaryngeal voice quality.Laryngoscope. 2018; 128: 2460-2466
- Acoustic analysis of tracheo-oesophageal versus oesophageal speech.J Laryngol Otol. 1994; 108: 325-328
- Acoustical analysis and perceptual evaluation of tracheoesophageal prosthetic voice.J Voice. 1998; 12: 239-248
- Aerodynamic and myoelastic contributions to tracheoesophageal voice production.J Speech Hear Res. 1987; 30: 387-395
- Formant frequency characteristics of esophageal speech.J Speech Hear Res. 1972; 15: 439-448
- Acoustic analysis of aperiodic voice: perturbation and nonlinear dynamic properties in esophageal phonation.J Voice. 2009; 23: 283-290
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 21, 2020
Accepted:
November 23,
2020
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
