To examine the amplitude-temporal relationships of acoustic nasalization in speakers with a range of nasality and to determine the extent to which each domain independently predicts the speaker’s perceived oral-nasal balance.
Design:
Rate-controlled speech samples, consisting of /izinizi/, /azanaza/, and /uzunuzu/, were recorded from 18 participants (14 with repaired cleft palate and 4 without cleft palate) using the Nasometer. The mean nasalance of the entire mid-vowel–nasal consonant–vowel (mid-VNV) sequence (amplitude-domain) and the duration of the nasalized segment of the mid-VNV sequence (temporal-domain) were obtained based on nasalance contours.
Results:
Strong linear and vowel-dependent relationships were observed between the 2 domains of nasalization (adjusted R2 = 71.5%). Both the amplitude- and temporal-domain measures were found to reliably predict the speaker’s perceived oral-nasal balance, with better overall model fit and higher classification accuracy rates observed in /izinizi/ and /uzunuzu/ than in /azanaza/. Despite poor specificity, the temporal-domain measure of /azanaza/ was found to have a strong correlation with the participants’ Zoo passage nasalance scores (rs = .897, p < .01), suggesting its potential utility as a severity indicator of perceived nasality.
Conclusions:
With the use of relatively simple speech tasks and measurements representing the amplitude and temporal domains of nasalization, the present study provided practical guidelines for using the Nasometer in assessing patients with oral-nasal resonance imbalance. Findings suggest that both domain measures of nasalization should be examined across different vowel contexts, given that each domain may provide clinically relevant, yet different, information.
AwanSNBressmannTPoburkaBRoyNSharpHWattsC. Dialectical effects on nasalance: a multicenter, cross-continental study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015;58:69–77.
2.
AwanSNOmlorKWattsCR. Effects of computer system and vowel loading on measures of nasalance. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54:1284–1294.
3.
BaeYKuehnDPHaS. Validity of the nasometer measuring the temporal characteristics of nasalization. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007;44:506–517.
4.
Bell-BertiF. Understanding velic motor control: studies of segmental context. In: HuffmanMKKrakowR, eds. Phonetics and Phonology 5: Nasals, Nasalization, and the Velum. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1993:63–85.
Bell-BertiFKrakowRAGelferCEBoyceSE. Anticipatory and carryover effects: implications for models of speech production. In: Bell-BertiFRaphaelLJ, eds. Producing Speech: Contemporary Issues. New York, NY: AIP Press; 1995:77–97.
7.
BlantonAWattersonTLewisK. The differential influence of vowels and palatal covering on nasalance scores. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52:82–87.
8.
BundyELZajacDJ. Estimation of transpalatal nasalance during production of voiced stop consonants by noncleft speakers using an oral-nasal mask. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43:691–701.
9.
BuntonKStoryBH. The relation of nasality and nasalance to nasal port area based on a computational model. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49:741–749.
10.
CarignanCShostedRShihCRongP. Compensatory articulation in American English nasalized vowels. J Phon. 2011;39:668–682.
11.
CummingsCMcCauleyRBaylisA. The effect of loudness variation on velopharyngeal function in children with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: a pilot study. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2015;67:76–82.
12.
DalstonRMSeaverEJ. Nasometric and phototransductive measurements of reaction times among normal adult speakers. Cleft Palate J. 1990;27:61–67.
13.
DalstonRMSeaverEJ. Relative values of various standardized passages in the nasometric assessment of patients with velopharyngeal impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29:17–21.
14.
DalstonRMWarrenDW. Comparison of Tonar II, pressure-flow, and listener judgments of hypernasality in the assessment of velopharyngeal function. Cleft Palate J. 1986;23:108–115.
15.
DalstonRMWarrenDWDalstonET. A preliminary investigation concerning the use of nasometry in identifying patients with hyponasality and/or nasal airway impairment. J Speech Hear Res. 1991a;34:11–18.
16.
DalstonRMWarrenDWDalstonET. Use of nasometry as a diagnostic tool for identifying patients with velopharyngeal impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991b;28:184–188.
17.
DalstonRMWarrenDWDalstonET. The temporal characteristics of aerodynamic phenomena associated with patients manifesting varying degrees of velopharyngeal adequacy. Folia Phoniatr (Basel). 1991c;43:226–233.
18.
DalstonRMWarrenDWSmithLR. The aerodynamic characteristics of speech produced by normal speakers and cleft palate speakers with adequate velopharyngeal function. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1990;27:393–399.
19.
EngelkeWBrunsTStriebeckMHochG. Midsagittal velar kinematics during production of VCV sequences. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996;33:236–244.
20.
FlegeJE. Anticipatory and carry-over nasal coarticulation in the speech of children and adults. J Speech Hear Res. 1988;31:525–536.
21.
FletcherSG. “Nasalance” vs. listener judgments of nasality. Cleft Palate J. 1976;13:31–44.
22.
Gildersleeve-NeumannCEDalstonRM. Nasalance scores in noncleft individuals: why not zero?Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38:106–111.
23.
HaSKuehnDP. Temporal characteristics of nasalization in speakers with and without cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48:134–144.
24.
HaSSimHZhiMKuehnDP. An acoustic study on the temporal characteristics of nasalization between children with and without cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41:535–543.
25.
HairJFAndersonRJrTathamRL. Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings. New York, NY: Macmillan; 1987:89–90.
26.
HenningssonGKuehnDPSellDSweeneyTTrost-CardamoneJEWhitehillTL. Universal parameters for reporting speech outcomes in individuals with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45:1–17.
27.
HoriiY. An accelerometric approach to nasality measurement: a preliminary report. Cleft Palate J. 1980;17:254–261.
28.
HoriiY. An accelerometric measures as a physical correlate of perceived hypernasality in speech. J Speech Hear Res. 1983;26:476–480.
29.
HoriiYLangJE. Distributional analyses of an index of nasal coupling (HONC) in simulated hypernasal speech. Cleft Palate J. 1981;18:279–285.
30.
HustadKCWeismerG. Intervention to improve intelligibility and communicative success for speakers with dysarthria. In: WeismerG, ed. Motor Speech Disorders. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2006:293–294.
31.
JenningsJJKuehnDP. The effects of frequency range, vowel, dynamic loudness level, and gender on nasalance in amateur and classically trained singers. J Voice. 2008;22:75–89.
32.
JonesDL. The relationship between temporal aspects of oral-nasal balance and classification of velopharyngeal status in speakers with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;36:363–369.
33.
JonesDL. Patterns of oral-nasal balance in normal speakers with and without cleft palate. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2006;58:383–391.
34.
JonesDLFolkinsJWMorrisHL. Speech production time judgments of disordered nasalization in speakers with cleft palate. J Speech Hear Res. 1990;33:458–466.
35.
JonesDLMorrisHLVan DemarkDR. A comparison of oral-nasal balance patterns in speakers who are categorized as ABNQ and SBNA. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41:526–534.
36.
Kay Elemetrics. Nasometer II Model 6400/6402: Installation, Operations, and Maintenance Manual. Lincoln Park, NJ: Kay Elemetrics Corp; 2003.
37.
KuehnDPMoonJB. Velopharyngeal closure force and levator veli palatini activation levels in varying phonetic contexts. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998;41:51–62.
KummerAW. Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Anomalies: Effects on Speech and Resonance, 2nd ed. Clifton Park, NY: Cengage Learning; 2008.
40.
LewisKEWattersonT. Comparison of nasalance scores obtained from the Nasometer and the NasalView. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2003;40:40–45.
41.
LewisKEWattersonTQuintT. The effect of vowels on nasalance scores. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37:584–589.
42.
LippmannRP. Detecting nasalization using a low-cost miniature accelerometer. J Speech Hear Res. 1981;24:314–317.
43.
LubkerJF. An electromyographic-cinefluorographic investigation of velar function during normal speech production. Cleft Palate J. 1968;5:1–18.
44.
MacKayIRKummerAW. Simplified Nasometric Assessment Procedures. Lincoln Park, NJ: Kay Elemtrics; 1994.
45.
MatsuyaTMiyazakiTYamaokaM. Fiberscopic examination of velopharyngeal closure in normal individuals. Cleft Palate J. 1974;11:286–291.
46.
McCleanM. Forward coarticulation of velar movement at marked junctural boundaries. J Speech Hear Res. 1973;16:286–296.
47.
McHenryMA. The effect of increased vocal effort on estimated velopharyngeal orifice area. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1997;6:55–61.
48.
MollKL. Velopharyngeal closure on vowels. J Speech Hear Res. 1962;5:30–37.
49.
MollKLDaniloffRG. Investigation of the timing of velar movements during speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 1971;50:678–684.
50.
MoonJBKuehnDPHuismannJJ. Measurement of velopharyngeal closure force during vowel production. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1994;31:356–363.
51.
NellisJLNeimanGSLehmanJA. Comparison of nasometer and listener judgments of nasality in the assessment of velopharyngeal function after pharyngeal flap surgery. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29:157–163.
52.
RedenbaughMAReichAR. Correspondence between an accelerometric nasal/voice amplitude ratio and listeners’ direct magnitude estimations of hypernasalityJ Speech Hear Res. 1985;28:273–281.
53.
RochetAPRochetBLSovisEAMielkeDL. Characteristics of nasalance in speakers of western Canadian English and French. J Speech-Lang Pathol Audiol. 1998;22:94–103.
54.
SeaverEJDalstonRM. Using simultaneous nasometry and standard audio recordings to detect the acoustic onsets and offsets of speech. J Speech Hear Res. 1990;33:358–362.
55.
SeaverEJDalstonRMLeeperHAAdamsLE. A study of nasometric values for normal nasal resonance. J Speech Hear Res. 1991;34:715–721.
SmallLH. Fundamentals of Phonetics: A Practical Guide for Students. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2015.
58.
StevensJ. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2007.
59.
ThorpEBVirnikBTSteppCE. Normalization strategies for nasal acceleration to assess velopharyngeal function. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012;2012:6459–6462.
60.
Van LierdeKMVan BorselJCardinaelAReeckmansSBonteK. The impact of vocal intensity and pitch modulation on nasalance scores: a pilot study. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2011;63:21–26.
61.
van DoornJPurcellA. Nasalance levels in the speech of normal Australian children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1998;35:287–292.
62.
WarrenDWDalstonRMMayoR. Hypernasality in the presence of “adequate” velopharyngeal closure. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993;30:150–154.
63.
WarrenDWDalstonRMTrierWCHolderMB. A pressure-flow technique for quantifying temporal patterns of palatopharyngeal closure. Cleft Palate J. 1985;22:11–19.
64.
WattersonTHintonJMcFarlaneS. Novel stimuli for obtaining nasalance measures from young children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996;33:67–73.
65.
WattersonTLewisKEFoley-HomanN. Effect of stimulus length on nasalance scores. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36:243–247.
66.
WattersonTMcFarlaneSCWrightDS. The relationship between nasalance and nasality in children with cleft palate. J Commun Disord. 1993;26:13–28.
67.
WattersonTYorkSLMcFarlaneSC. Effects of vocal loudness on nasalance measures. J Commun Disord. 1994;27:257–262.
68.
ZajacDJHackettAM. Temporal characteristics of aerodynamic segments in the speech of children and adults. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39:432–438.
