Advertisement

Diagnostic Procedures and Instruments Used in the Assessment and Treatment of Speech

  • Samuel Berkowitz

30.10 Summary

Several instrumental procedures are available for assessing the velopharyngeal mechanism and its function. Each has advantages and disadvantages, and choosing among them depends on the specific purpose of the evaluation. The reliability of endoscopic procedures is not well documented.

Aerodynamic measures provide data about the area of the velopharyngeal opening, velopharyngeal resistance to air flow, and air pressure available for the production of obstruent sounds. These measures provide no information about the relative contributions of the velum and the pharyngeal walls to velopharyngeal function.

An important warning in the use of any instrumentation for the study of speech is that data taken during speech production must be interpreted within the context of the patient’s repertoire of speech proficiency.

Keywords

Soft Palate Cleft Palate Vocal Tract Lateral Pharyngeal Wall Velopharyngeal Closure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    King EW. A roentgenographic study of pharyngeal growth. Angle Orthod 1952; 22:23.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosenberger HC. Growth and development of the nasorespiratory area in childhood. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1934; 43:495.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Subtelny JD. A cephalometric study of the growth of the soft palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1957; 19:49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Subtelny JD, Baker HK. The significance of adenoid tissue in velopharyngeal function. Au Journal 1956; 17:235.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brader AA. A cephalometric appraisal of morphologic variations in cranial base and associated pharyngeal structures: implications in cleft palate therapy. Angle Orthod 1957; 27:179.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prusansky S. Description, classification, and analysis of unoperated clefts of the lip and palate. Am J Orthodont 1953; 39:590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ricketts RM. The cranial base and soft structures in cleft palate speech and breathing. Plast Reconstr Surg 1954; 14:74.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Slaughter WB, Prusansky S. The rationale for velar closure as a primary procedure in the repair of cleft palate defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 1954; 13:341PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Subtelny JD. Width of the nasopharynx and related anatomic structures in normal and unoperated cleft palate children. Am J Orthodont 1955; 41:889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McWillams BJ, Girdny B. The use of Televex in cleft palate research. Cleft Palate J 1965; 2:46.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Skolnick ML. Videofluoroscopic examination of the velopharyngeal portal during phonation in lateral and base projections-a new technique for studying the mechanics of closure. Cleft Palate J 1970; 7:803–816.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skolnick ML, Azgzebski JA, Watkin KL. Two-dimensional ultrasonic demonstration of lateral pharyngeal wall movement in real time-a preliminary report. Cleft Palate J 1975; 12:299.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shprintzen RJ, Rakoff SJ, Skolnick ML, Lavaroto AS. Incongruous movements of the velum and lateral walls. Cleft Palate J 1977; 14:148–157.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hawkins CF, Swisher WE. Evaluation of real-time ultrasound scanner in assessing lateral pharyngeal wave motion during speech. Cleft Palate J 1978; 15:161.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McWilliams BJ, Morris HS, Shelton RL, (eds.) Instruments for assessing velopharyngeal mechanisms in cleft palate speech. St. Louis, MO: CV Mosby; 1984.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dalston RM, Warren DW, Dalston ET. The use of Nasometry as a diagnostic tool for identifying patients with velopharyngeal impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1981; 28:184–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fletcher SG, Bishop ME. Measurement of nasality with TONAR. Cleft Palate J 1970; 7:610–621.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Warren DW, DuBois AB. A pressure-flow technique for measuring velopharyngeal orifice area during continuous speech. Cleft Palate J 1964; 1:52–71.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Warren DW. PERCI: A method for rating palatal efficiency. Cleft Palate J 1979; 16:279–285.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel Berkowitz

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations