The Influence of Stimulus Composition and Scoring Method on Objective Listener Assessments of Tracheoesophageal Speech Accuracy
Source abstract
Abstract
Introduction: This study investigated the influence of stimulus composition for three speech intelligibility word lists and two scoring methods on the speech accuracy judgments of five tracheoesophageal (TE) speakers. This was achieved through phonemic comparisons across TE speakers’ productions of stimuli from the three intelligibility word lists, including the (1) Consonant Rhyme Test, (2) Northwestern Intelligibility Test, and (3) the Weiss and Basili list. Methodology: Fifteen normal-hearing young adults served as listeners; all listeners were trained in phonetic transcription (IPA), but none had previous exposure to any mode of postlaryngectomy alaryngeal speech. Speaker stimuli were presented to all listeners through headphones, and all stimuli were transcribed phonetically using an open-set response paradigm. Data were analyzed for individual speakers by stimulus list. Phonemic scoring was compared to a whole-word scoring method, and the types of errors observed were quantified by word list. Results: Individual speaker variability was noted, and its effect on the assessment of speech accuracy was identified. The phonemic scoring method was found to be a more sensitive measure of TE speech accuracy. The W&B list yielded the lowest accuracy scores of the three lists. This finding may indicate its increased sensitivity and potential clinical value. Conclusions: Overall, this study supports the use of open-set, phonemic scoring methods when evaluating TE speaker intelligibility. Future research should aim to assess the specificity of assessment tools on a larger sample of TE speakers who vary in their speech proficiency.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Voice and Speech Disorders · Phonetics and Phonology Research · Dysphagia Assessment and Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Laryngology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Voice Production and Perception Laboratory, Rehabilitation Sciences, Western University, London, ON N6G 1H1, Canada
Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
References (54)
Show source-provided references
1. Auditory-perceptual speech outcomes and quality of life after total laryngectomy10.1177/0194599812461755 ↗
2. Comparison of the financial burden of survivors of head and neck cancer with other cancer survivors10.1001/jamaoto.2018.3982 ↗
3. Communication changes with laryngectomy and impact on quality of life: A review10.1007/s11136-018-2033-y ↗
4. An endoscopic technique for restoration of voice after laryngectomy10.1177/000348948008900608 ↗
5. Verbal performance of total laryngectomized patients rehabilitated with esophageal speech and tracheoesophageal speech: Impacts on patient quality of life10.2147/PRBM.S212793 ↗
6. Maniaci, A., Lechien, J.R., Caruso, S., Nocera, F., Ferlito, S., Iannella, G., Grillo, C.M., Magliulo, G., Pace, A., and Vicini, C. (2021). Voice-related quality of life after total laryngectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Voice, in press.10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.09.040 ↗
7. Objective assessment of tracheoesophageal and esophageal speech using acoustic analysis of voice
8. Acoustic characterization of the voice with a tracheoesophageal speech in laryngectomized patients. Similarities and differences with the laryngeal voice10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.11.017 ↗
9. Selected acoustic features of tracheoesophageal, esophageal, and laryngeal speech10.1001/archotol.1984.00800360042009 ↗
10. Listener’s perceptions of consonants produced by esophageal and tracheoesophageal speakers10.1044/jshd.5304.400 ↗
11. Multicenter study assessing effects of heat and moisture exchanger use on respiratory symptoms and voice quality in laryngectomized individuals10.1016/S0194-59980301595-X ↗
12. A prospective study of tracheoesophageal speech10.1001/archotol.1986.03780040080017 ↗
13. Computing scores of voice quality and speech intelligibility in tracheoesophageal speech for speech stimuli of varying lengths10.1016/j.csl.2015.10.001 ↗
14. Effects of audio-visual information on the intelligibility of alaryngeal speech10.1016/j.jcomdis.2009.10.002 ↗
15. Intelligibility of stop-plosive and fricative consonants produced by tracheoesophageal speakers in quiet and noise10.1121/10.0001410 ↗
16. The intelligibility of tracheoesophageal speech, with an emphasis on the voiced-voiceless distinction10.1080/14015430500515732 ↗
17. Intelligibility of stops and fricatives in tracheoesophageal speech10.1016/S0021-9924(01)00052-1 ↗
18. Acceptability and intelligibility of tracheoesophageal speech10.1001/archotol.1985.00800060037002 ↗
19. Differences in speaking proficiencies in three laryngectomy groups10.1001/archotol.1985.00800060040003 ↗
20. Aerodynamics of esophageal voice production with and without a Groningen voice prosthesis10.1159/000048592 ↗
21. Correlation between tracheoesophageal voice and speech and intraluminal pharyngoesophageal transition pressure10.1590/S0104-56872010000400021 ↗
22. Aerodynamic and sound intensity measurements in tracheoesophageal voice10.1159/000097401 ↗
23. The mechanism of esophageal speech10.1111/j.1749-6632.1968.tb56776.x ↗
24. Aerodynamic characteristics associated with oesophageal and tracheoesophageal speech of Cantonese10.3109/17549507.2011.534176 ↗
25. Intraluminal esophageal pressures in speaking laryngectomees10.1177/000348941011901115 ↗
26. Aerodynamics of the pseudo-glottis10.1159/000188660 ↗
27. Aerodynamic findings in esophageal voice10.1001/archotol.127.6.700 ↗
28. Analysis of Polish vowels of tracheoesophageal speakers10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.04.007 ↗
29. An acoustical and perceptual study of vowels produced by alaryngeal speakers of Cantonese10.1159/000209272 ↗
30. Fundamental frequency, intensity, and vowel duration characteristics related to perception of Cantonese alaryngeal speech10.1159/000052652 ↗
31. Aerodynamic and myoelastic contributions to tracheoesophageal voice production10.1044/jshr.3003.387 ↗
32. Objective and subjective voice outcomes after total laryngectomy
33. Phonation offset in tracheoesophageal speech10.1016/j.jcomdis.2004.03.004 ↗
34. Doyle, P.C. (2019). Clinical Care and Rehabilitation in Head and Neck Cancer, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-04702-3 ↗
35. Effects of open-set and closed-set task demands on spoken word recognition10.3766/jaaa.17.5.4 ↗
36. Familiarity and intelligibility of monosyllabic word lists10.1044/jshr.1102.435 ↗
37. The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials10.1037/h0062491 ↗
38. Auditory illusions and confusions10.1038/scientificamerican1270-30 ↗
39. Lexical ambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition10.1037/0096-1523.2.2.243 ↗
40. Identification times for phonemic components of graded complexity and for spelling of speech10.3758/BF03208692 ↗
41. Phonetic categorization in auditory word perception10.1037/0096-1523.6.1.110 ↗
42. Effects of signal-to-noise ratio on the nonsense syllable test10.1097/00003446-198610000-00006 ↗
43. Toward phonetic intelligibility testing in dysarthria10.1044/jshd.5404.482 ↗
44. Normative data and physical measurements for a nonsense CVC intelligibility test10.1121/1.2025456 ↗
45. Doyle, P.C. (2019). Clinical Care and Rehabilitation in Head and Neck Cancer, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-04702-3 ↗
46. “Cloze procedure”: A new tool for measuring readability
47. Quality of ‘glottal’ stops in tracheoesophageal speakers10.1080/02699200802394856 ↗
48. Single-word intelligibility testing in aphasia: Alternate forms reliability, phonetic complexity and word frequency10.1080/02687038.2013.855702 ↗
49. Tillman, T., and Carhart, R. (1966). An Expanded Test for Speech Discrimination Utilizing CNC Monosyllabic Words: Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.10.21236/AD0639638 ↗
50. Articulation testing methods: Consonantal differentiation with a closed-response set10.1121/1.1909295 ↗
51. Electrolaryngeal speech produced by laryngectomized subjects10.1044/jshr.2802.294 ↗
52. Single-word speech intelligibility in children and adults with Down syndrome10.1044/2017_AJSLP-17-0002 ↗
53. Measuring up to speech intelligibility10.1111/1460-6984.12061 ↗
54. Effects of listener sophistication on judgments of tracheoesophageal talker intelligibility10.1016/0021-9924(89)90027-0 ↗