Perceptual Judgments of Resonance, Speech Understandability, and Speech Acceptability in Children with Repaired Cleft Palate Across Words and Sentences

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


Introduction: In children, even with early repair of the cleft, speech errors such as hypernasality, atypical consonant production, and abnormal nasal airflow persist which affects overall speech intelligibility. Perceptual evaluation is considered as the gold standard in the speech assessment of individuals with cleft lip and palate. Speech intelligibility is an important and essential measure of disordered speech; furthermore, it is a major goal of therapeutic intervention. Various factors such as resonance, speech understandability, and speech acceptability vary across stimuli. Aim and Objectives: The present study investigated resonance, speech understandability, and speech acceptability across stimuli (words versus sentences) through perceptual judgment and also correlation among the same was analyzed. Method: The evaluation included 20 native speakers of Kannada language with repaired cleft palate in the age range between 6 and 12 years. The stimuli considered were ten meaningful Kannada words and ten oral Kannada sentences, both loaded with pressure consonants. Responses were collected and were perceptually rated using Henningsson’s rating scale by three experienced speech-language pathologists. Results: The results revealed no significant difference between words and sentences across resonance, speech understandability, and speech acceptability in the paired t-test. Cronbach’s alpha was computed for words and sentences which indicated higher inter-judge reliability among the three judges (α > 0.70). There was a significant correlation (p < 0.05) among resonance, speech understandability, and speech acceptability in both words and in sentences. Conclusion: The present study concludes that resonance, speech understandability, and speech acceptability do not vary across stimuli in children with cleft lip and palate.


Repaired cleft lip and palate Resonance Speech intelligibility Speech understandability Speech acceptability Henningsson’s scale 

List of Abbreviations


Cleft lip and palate


Repaired cleft of lip and palate


Speech-language pathologist


Standard deviation



This is a part of ongoing research on “NASOSPEECH: Development of Diagnostic System for Severity Assessment of the Disordered Speech”, funded by the Department of Biotechnology (DBT - No. SH/PL/DBT (AKA)/2016-17), Government of India. The authors would like to thank DBT for funding the project.


  1. 1.
    Bzoch KR (ed) (1997) Communicative disorders related to cleft lip and palate, 4th edn. Pro-Ed, Austin, TXGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Darley FL, Aronson AE, Brown JR (1969) Differential diagnostic patterns of dysarthria. J Speech Lang Hear Res 12(2):246–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gnanavel K, Pushpavathi M (2012) Effect of type of cleft and speech stimuli on speech intelligibility in individuals with cleft lip and palate. J All India Inst Speech Hear 31Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Henningsson G, Kuehn DP, Sell D, Sweeney T, Trost-Cardamone JE, Whitehill TL (2008) Universal parameters for reporting speech outcomes in individuals with cleft palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J 45(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jayakumar T, Pushpavathi M (2005) Normative score for nasometer in Kannada. Student research at AIISH (Articles based on dissertation done at AIISH) 7:44–53Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kang J, Park B, Paek S, Kwon S, Lee J, Choi Y (2009) the relationship between speaker factors and speech intelligibility of children with cleft palate. Commun Sci Disord 14(3):338–348Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kuehn DP, Moller KT (2000) Speech and language issues in the cleft palate population: the state of the art. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J 37(4):348–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kummer AW (2014) Speech evaluation for patients with cleft palate. Clin Plast Surg 41(2):241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee GS, Wang CP, Yang CC, Kuo TB (2006) Voice low tone to high tone ratio: a potential quantitative index for vowel [a:] and its nasalization. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 53(7):1437–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McWilliams BJ, Morris HL, Shelton RS (1990) Cleft palate speech, 2nd edn. BC Decker, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Myers EN (2008) Operative otolaryngology: head and neck surgery E-Book: 2-Volume Set (Vol. 2). Elsevier Health Sciences, 782–783Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ray J (2002) Treating phonological disorders in a multilingual child: A case study. Am J Speech-Language Pathol 11(3):305–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stengelhofen J (1989) The nature and causes of communication problems in cleft palate. In: Stengelhofen J (ed) Ceft palate. Churchill Livingstone, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Lierde KM, De Bodt M, Van Borsel J, Wuyts FL, Van Cauwenberge P (2002) Effect of cleft type on overall speech intelligibility and resonance. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 54(3):158–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Whitehill TL (2002) Assessing intelligibility in speakers with cleft palate: a critical review of the literature. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial J 39(1):50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Whitehill TL, Chau CHF (2004) Single-word intelligibility in speakers with repaired cleft palate. Clin Linguist Phon 18(4–5):341–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.All India Institute of Speech and HearingMysuruIndia
  2. 2.Department of ElectronicsAll India Institute of Speech and HearingMysuruIndia
  3. 3.Department of Electrical & Electronics EngineeringIIT, GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations