A Comparative Acoustic Study of Voice Rehabilitation After Total Laryngectomy.
- Author:
Hyun Min PARK
1
;
Bong Hyung SONG
;
Hyun Soo MOON
;
Dae Hyun KIM
;
Cheol Woo JO
;
Woo Young SHIM
;
Seu Gyu KIM
;
Moo Jin BAEK
;
Hwan Jung ROH
;
Eui Kyung GOH
;
Kyung Myong CHON
;
Soo Geun WANG
Author Information
1. Department of Otolaryngology, College of Medicine, Pusan National University, Pusan, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Alaryngeal voice;
Acoustic analysis;
Laryngectomees
- MeSH:
Acoustics*;
Humans;
Laryngectomy*;
Mouth;
Phonation;
Rehabilitation*;
Speech, Esophageal;
Voice Quality;
Voice*
- From:Korean Journal of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
2000;43(1):80-85
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Acoustic parameters of maximal phonation time, sound intensity, fundamental frequency, voice range, jitter and shimmer were analyzed in order to evaluate voice quality and differences among esophageal speech (ES), tracheoesophageal shunt speech (TES), pneumatic aid speech (PA), electrolaryngeal speech (EL) according to phonetic rehabilitation methods in 16 cases of laryngectomees. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We acquired acoustic data on alaryngeal voice by different methods, and analysed each of those using specially designed programs (Laryngeal analyser V1.0 base on Matlab V5.0). RESULTS: Maximal phonation time was significantly longer in TES voice and PA speech than in ES voice (p<0.05). Jitter and shimmer were significantly regular and stable in the EL and PA speech than in the ES and TES voice (p<0.05). Voice range was significantly wider in TES voice and PA speech than in EL and ES voice (p<0.05). In two cases capable of bi-modal speech of ES and TES voice, maximal phonation time was longer with wider voice range in TES voice than in ES voice. Jitter and shimmer were regular and stable in ES voice than in TES voice. CONCLUSION: PA speech displays phonetically more natural laryngeal speech than other rehabilitation methods. But this methods is inconvenient and cosmetically unacceptable, because patients have to bite intraoral vibrator in the patient's mouth. So, we recommend TES voice rather than ES voice, without the use of speech-making device such as EL and PA speech.
