Advertisement

Intelligibility in Postlaryngectomy Speech

  • Lindsay E. Sleeth
  • Philip C. Doyle
Chapter

Abstract

Speech intelligibility (SI) has been a longstanding concern in relation to speech disorders including reductions that occur secondary to total laryngectomy and the use of alaryngeal voicing methods. Because of the loss of the larynx and the requirement that one acquires a new voicing source, SI will always be reduced in this population. It is well-recognized that SI will be impacted by a variety of factors specific to the speaker, as well as the listener. However, while SI has been widely considered in those who have undergone total laryngectomy and use either the artificial electrolarynx or esophageal speech or have undergone tracheoesophageal voice restoration, consideration of collective factors on assessments of intelligibility has not yet been fully addressed. Thus, this chapter provides information pertaining to SI in alaryngeal speakers. In doing so, a variety of factors that underlie fundamental changes in alaryngeal speech production that will have a direct impact on SI are discussed. This information is designed to further our knowledge related to unique aspects of alaryngeal speech and the potential impact of such changes on SI.

Keywords

Laryngectomy Intelligibility Alaryngeal speech Speech rehabilitation Laryngeal cancer 

References

  1. Ackerstaff, A. H., Hilgers, F. J. M., Aaronson, N. K., & Balm, A. J. M. (1994). Communication, functional disorders and lifestyle changes after total laryngectomy. Clinical Otolaryngology and Allied Sciences, 19(4), 295–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amster, W. W., Love, R. J., Menzel, O. J., Sandler, J., Sculthorpe, W. B., & Gross, F. M. (1972). Psychosocial factors and speech after laryngectomy. Journal of Communication Disorders, 5, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baggs, T. W., & Pine, S. J. (1983). Acoustic characteristics: Tracheoesophageal speech. Journal of Communication Disorders, 16(4), 299–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellandese, M. H., Lerman, J. W., & Gilbert, H. R. (2001). An acoustic analysis of excellent female esophageal, tracheoesophageal, and laryngeal speakers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44(6), 1315–1320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, S., & Weinberg, B. (1973). Acceptability ratings of normal, esophageal, and artificial larynx speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 16(4), 608–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beukelman, D. R., & Yorkston, K. M. (1980). Influence of passage familiarity on intelligibility estimates of dysarthric speech. Journal of Communication Disorders, 13, 33–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black, J. W., & Haagen, C. H. (1963). Multiple choice intelligibility tests, forms A and B. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 28, 77–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blom, E. D. (1998). Evolution of tracheoesophageal voice prostheses. In E. D. Blom, M. I. Singer, & R. C. Hamaker (Eds.), Tracheoesophageal voice restoration following total laryngectomy (pp. 1–8). San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  9. Blom, E. D., Singer, M. I., & Hamaker, R. C. (1986). A prospective study of tracheoesophageal speech. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 112, 440–447.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blood, G. W. (1981). The interactions of amplitude and phonetic quality in esophageal speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24, 308–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bohnenkamp, T. A., Forrest, K., Klaben, B. K., & Stager, J. (2012). Chest wall kinematics during speech breathing in tracheoesophageal speakers. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 121(1), 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bornbaum, C. C., Fung, K., Franklin, J. H., Nichols, A., Yoo, J., & Doyle, P. C. (2012). A descriptive analysis of the relationship between quality of life and distress in individuals with head and neck cancer. Supportive Care in Cancer, 20(9), 2157–2165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bridges, A. (1991). Acceptability ratings and intelligibility scores of alaryngeal speakers by three listener groups. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 26, 325–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christensen, J. M., & Dwyer, P. E. (1990). Improving alaryngeal speech intelligibility. Journal of Communication Disorders, 23, 445–451.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Christensen, J. M., Weinberg, B., & Alfonso, P. J. (1978). Productive voice onset time characteristics of esophageal speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 56–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clark, J., & Stemple, J. (1982). Assessment of three modes of alaryngeal speech with a synthetic sentence identification task in varying message to competition ratios. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 25, 333–338.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clements, K. S., Rassekh, C. H., Seikaly, H., Hokanson, J. A., & Calhoun, K. H. (1997). Communication after laryngectomy: An assessment of patient satisfaction. Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 123, 493–496.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Connor, N. P., Hamlet, S. L., & Joyce, J. C. (1985). Acoustic and physiologic correlates of the voicing distinction in esophageal speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 50, 378–384.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Cullinan, W. L., Brown, C. S., & Blalock, P. D. (1986). Ratings of intelligibility of esophageal and tracheoesophageal speech. Journal of Communication Disorders, 19, 185–195.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Darley, F. L., Aronson, A. E., & Brown, J. R. (1969). Differential diagnostic patterns of dysarthria. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 12(2), 246–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Diedrich, W. M. (1968). The mechanism of esophageal speech. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 155, 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Doyle, P. C. (1994). Foundations of voice and speech rehabilitation following laryngeal cancer. San Diego, CA: Singular.Google Scholar
  23. Doyle, P. C. (1998). Postlaryngectomy rehabilitation: Clinical care following treatment for laryngeal cancer: The opening of doors. Perspectives on Voice and Voice Disorders, 8(3), 4–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Doyle, P. C. (2005). Rehabilitation in head and neck cancer: Overview. In P. C. Doyle & R. L. Keith (Eds.), Contemporary considerations in the treatment and rehabilitation of head and neck cancer: Voice, speech and swallowing (pp. 3–15). Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Incorporated.Google Scholar
  25. Doyle, P. C. (2017a). Communication challenges in laryngeal cancer. In J. C. Friberg & L. A. Vinney (Eds.), Laryngeal cancer: An interdisciplinary resource for practitioners (pp. 73–89). Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Doyle, P. C. (2017b, unpublished data). The influence of formal test stimuli construction on assessments of tracheoesophageal speech intelligibility. Voice Production and Perception Laboratory, Western University, London, ON.Google Scholar
  27. Doyle, P. C., Danhauer, J. L., & Lucks-Mendel, L. L. (1990). A SINDSCAL analysis of perceptual features for consonants produced by esophageal and tracheoesophageal talkers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55(4), 756–760.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Doyle, P. C., Danhauer, J. L., & Reed, C. G. (1988). Listeners’ perceptions of consonants produced by esophageal and tracheoesophageal talkers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53, 400–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Doyle, P. C., & Eadie, T. L. (2005). Pharyngoesophageal segment function: A review and reconsideration. In P. C. Doyle & R. L. Keith (Eds.), Contemporary considerations in the treatment and rehabilitation of head and neck cancer: Voice, speech and swallowing (pp. 521–543). Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Incorporated.Google Scholar
  30. Doyle, P. C., & Haaf, R. G. (1989). Perception of pre-vocalic and post-vocalic consonants produced by tracheoesophageal speakers. The Journal of Otolaryngology, 18(7), 350–353.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Doyle, P. C., Swift, E. R., & Haaf, R. G. (1989). Effects of listener sophistication on judgments of tracheoesophageal talker intelligibility. Journal of Communication Disorders, 22, 105–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Duffy, J. R., & Giolas, T. G. (1974). Sentence intelligibility as a function of key word selection. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 17(4), 631–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Eadie, T. L. (2003). The ICF: A proposed framework for comprehensive rehabilitation of individuals who use alaryngeal speech. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12(2), 189–197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Eadie, T. L., & Doyle, P. C. (2002). Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of naturalness and severity in tracheoesophageal (TE) speakers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45(6), 1088–1096.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Eadie, T. L., & Doyle, P. C. (2004). Auditory-perceptual scaling and quality of life in tracheoesophageal speakers. The Laryngoscope, 114, 753–759.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Eadie, T. L., & Doyle, P. C. (2005). Quality of life in male tracheoesophageal (TE) speakers. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 42(1), 115–124.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Eadie, T. L., Doyle, P. C., Hansen, K., & Beaudin, P. G. (2008). Influence of speaker gender on listener judgments of tracheoesophageal speech. Journal of Voice, 22(1), 43–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Eadie, T. L., Otero, D., Cox, S., Johnson, J., Baylor, C. R., Yorkston, K. M., & Doyle, P. C. (2016). The relationship between communicative participation and postlaryngectomy speech outcomes. Head & Neck, 38(1), 1955–1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Epstein, R., Giolas, T. G., & Owens, E. (1968). Familiarity and intelligibility of monosyllabic word lists. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 11, 435–438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Filter, M. D., & Hyman, M. (1975). Relationship of acoustic parameters and perceptual ratings of esophageal speech. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 63–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Finizia, C., Dotevall, H., Lundstrom, E., & Lindstrom, J. (1999). Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of voice and speech quality. Archives of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, 125, 157–163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Giolas, T. G., Cooker, H. S., & Duffy, J. R. (1970). The predictability of words in sentences. Journal of Auditory Research, 10, 328–334.Google Scholar
  43. Gomyo, Y., & Doyle, P. C. (1989). Perception of stop consonants produced by esophageal and tracheoesophageal speakers. The Journal of Otolaryngology, 18(4), 184–188.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Hillman, R. E., Walsh, M. J., & Heaton, J. T. (2005). Laryngectomy speech rehabilitation - A review of outcomes. In P. C. Doyle & R. L. Keith (Eds.), Contemporary considerations in the treatment and rehabilitation of head and neck cancer: Voice, speech and swallowing (pp. 75–90). Austin, TX: PRO-ED, Incorporated.Google Scholar
  45. Hillman, R. E., Walsh, M. J., Wolf, G. T., Fisher, S. G., & Hong, W. K. (1998). Functional outcomes following treatment for advanced laryngeal cancer: Part I – voice preservation in advanced laryngeal cancer, part II – laryngectomy rehabilitation: The state of the art in the VA system. The Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 107(5), 2–21.Google Scholar
  46. House, A. S., Williams, C. E., Hecker, M. H. L., & Kryter, K. D. (1965). Articulation testing methods: Consonantal differentiation with a closed response set. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 37(1), 158–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hyman, M. (1955). An experimental study of artificial larynx and esophageal speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 20, 291–299.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jongmans, P., Hilgers, F. J. M., Pols, L. C. W., & van As-Brooks, C. J. (2006). The intelligibility of tracheoesophageal speech, with an emphasis on voiced-voiceless distinction. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 31, 172–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kalb, M. B., & Carpenter, M. A. (1981). Individual speaker influence on relative intelligibility of esophageal speech and artificial larynx speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 77–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kao, W. W., Mohr, R. M., Kimmel, C. A., Getch, C., & Silverman, C. (1994). The outcome and techniques of primary and secondary tracheoesophageal puncture. Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, 120(3), 301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Karnell, L. H., Funk, G. F., & Hoffman, H. T. (2000). Assessing head and neck cancer patient outcome domains. Head and Neck, 22(1), 6–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kent, R. D., Weismer, G., Kent, J. F., & Rosenbek, J. C. (1989). Toward phonetic intelligibility in dysarthria. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 482–499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Maryn, Y., Dick, C., Vandenbruaene, C., Vauterin, T., & Jacobs, T. (2009). Spectral, cepstral, and multivariate exploration of tracheoesophageal voice quality in continuous speech and sustained vowels. The Laryngoscope, 119(12), 2384–2394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McColl, D., Fucci, D., Petrosino, L., Martin, D. E., & McCaffrey, P. (1998). Listener ratings of the intelligibility of tracheoesophageal speech in noise. Journal of Communication Disorders, 31(4), 279–289.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. McDonald, R., Parsa, V., & Doyle, P. C. (2010). Objective estimation of tracheoesophageal speech ratings using an auditory model. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 127(2), 1032–1041.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Meyer, T. K., Kuhn, J. C., Campbell, B. H., Marbella, A. M., Myers, K. B., & Layde, P. M. (2004). Speech intelligibility and quality of life in head and neck cancer survivors. The Laryngoscope, 114, 1977–1981.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Miralles, J. L., & Cervera, T. (1995). Voice intelligibility in patients who have undergone laryngectomies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 564–571.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Moon, J. B., & Weinberg, B. (1987). Aerodynamic and myoelastic contributions to tracheoesophageal voice production. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 30(3), 387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nagle, K. F., & Eadie, T. L. (2012). Listener effort for highly intelligible tracheoesophageal speech. Journal of Communication Disorders, 45(3), 235–245.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nagle, K. F., Eadie, T. L., Wright, D. R., & Sumida, Y. A. (2012). Effect of fundamental frequency on judgments of electrolaryngeal speech. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21(2), 154–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pauloski, B. R., Fisher, H. B., Kempster, G. B., & Blom, E. D. (1989). Statistical differentiation of tracheoesophageal speech produced under four prosthetic/occlusion speaking conditions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 32(3), 591–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pindzola, R. H., & Cain, B. H. (1988). Acceptability ratings of tracheoesophageal speech. Laryngoscope, 98, 394–397.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Qi, Y., & Weinberg, B. (1995). Characteristics of voicing source waveforms produced by esophageal and tracheoesophageal speakers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 38(3), 536–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Robbins, J. (1984). Acoustic differentiation of laryngeal, esophageal, and tracheoesophageal speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27, 577–585.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Robbins, J., Christensen, J. M., & Kempster, G. (1986). Characteristics of speech production after tracheoesophageal puncture: Voice onset time and vowel duration. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 20, 499–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Robbins, J., Fisher, H. B., Blom, E. C., & Singer, M. I. (1984). A comparative acoustic study of normal, esophageal, and tracheoesophageal speech production. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 202–210.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Schiavetti, N. (1992). Scaling procedures for the measurement of speech intelligibility. In R. D. Kent (Ed.), Intelligibility in speech disorders (pp. 11–34). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Searl, J. P., & Carpenter, M. A. (2002). Acoustic cues to the voicing feature in tracheoesophageal speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 282–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Searl, J. P., Carpenter, M. A., & Banta, C. L. (2001). Intelligibility of stops and fricatives in tracheoesophageal speech. Journal of Communication Disorders, 34, 305–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Singer, M. I., & Blom, E. D. (1980). An endoscopic technique for restoration of voice after laryngectomy. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, 89, 529–533.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Singer, M. I., Blom, E. D., & Hamaker, R. C. (1983). Voice rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. The Journal of Otolaryngology, 12(5), 329–334.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Sisty, N. L., & Weinberg, B. (1972). Formant frequency characteristics of esophageal speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 15(2), 439–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Smith, B. E., Weinberg, B., Feth, L. L., & Horii, Y. (1978). Vocal roughness and jitter characteristics of vowels produced by esophageal speakers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 21(2), 240–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Smith, L. F., & Calhoun, K. H. (1994). Intelligibility of tracheoesophageal speech among naïve listeners. Southern Medical Journal, 87(3), 333–341.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Snidecor, J. C., & Curry, E. T. (1960). How effectively can the laryngectomee expect to speak? The Laryngoscope, 70(1), 62–67.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Stevens, S. S. (1975). Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual. New York, NY: Neural and Social Prospects Wiley.Google Scholar
  77. Subtelny, J. (1977). Assessment of speech with implications for training. In F. Bess (Ed.), Childhood deafness (pp. 183–194). New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  78. Tardy-Mitzell, S., Andrews, M. L., & Bowman, S. A. (1985). Acceptability and intelligibility of tracheoesophageal speech. Archives of Otolaryngology, 111(4), 213–215.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. Terrell, J. E., Ronis, D. L., Fowler, K. E., Bradford, C. R., Chepeha, D. B., Prince, M. E., … Duffy, S. A. (2004). Clinical predictors of quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer. Archives of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, 130, 401–408.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. Tjaden, K. K., & Liss, J. M. (1995). The role of listener familiarity in the perception of dysarthric speech. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 9(2), 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Trudeau, M. D. (1994). The acoustical variability of tracheoesophageal speech. In R. L. Keith & F. L. Darley (Eds.), Laryngectomy rehabilitation (pp. 383–394). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Incorporated.Google Scholar
  82. van As, C. J., Hilgers, F. J. M., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M., & Koopmans-van Beinam, F. J. (1998). Acoustical analysis and perceptual evaluation of tracheoesophageal prosthetic voice. Journal of Voice, 12, 239–248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Weinberg, B. (1980). Readings in speech following total laryngectomy. University Park Press.Google Scholar
  84. Weinberg, B., Horii, Y., Blom, E., & Singer, M. (1982). Airway resistance during esophageal phonation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47(2), 194–199.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Weinberg, B., Horii, Y., & Smith, B. E. (1980). Long-time spectral and intensity characteristics of esophageal speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67(5), 1781–1784.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Weiss, M. S., & Basili, A. G. (1985). Electrolaryngeal speech produced by laryngectomized subjects: Perceptual characteristics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 294–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Williams, S., & Watson, J. B. (1985). Differences in speaking proficiencies in three laryngectomy groups. Archives of Otolaryngology, 111, 216–219.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. World Health Organization. (2001). ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.Google Scholar
  89. Yorkston, K. M., & Beukelman, D. R. (1978). A comparison of techniques for measuring intelligibility of dysarthric speech. Journal of Communication Disorders, 11, 499–512.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Yorkston, K. M., & Beukelman, D. R. (1980). A clinician-judged technique for quantifying dysarthric speech based on single-word intelligibility. Journal of Communication Disorders, 13, 15–31.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. Yoshida, G. Y., Hamaker, R. C., Singer, M. I., Blom, E. D., & Charles, G. A. (1989). Primary voice restoration at laryngectomy: 1989 update. The Laryngoscope, 99(10), 1093–1095.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsay E. Sleeth
    • 1
    • 2
  • Philip C. Doyle
    • 3
  1. 1.Voice Production and Perception Laboratory, Rehabilitation Sciences, Western UniversityLondonCanada
  2. 2.South West Local Health Integration NetworkLondonCanada
  3. 3.Voice Production and Perception Laboratory & Laboratory for Well-Being and Quality of Life, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery and School of Communication Sciences and DisordersWestern University, Elborn CollegeLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations