Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the effects of breathy voice sources on ratings of hypernasality using synthesized speech.

Methods

Speech samples were obtained from children with cleft palates who demonstrated varying degrees of hypernasality and from a child with a voice disorder. Sources with 6 degrees of breathiness were created: a breathy source and five synthesized sources with lowered harmonics-to-noise ratio (HNR) values by the addition of impulses. These sources and each original (clear) source were combined with three kinds of filters: mild, moderate, and severely hypernasal. Consequently, 21 ([6 + 1] × 3) stimuli for each vowel (/a/ and /i/) were obtained for ratings.

Participants

Thirteen speech pathologists with academic training and various clinical experiences with cleft palate speech rated hypernasality of the stimuli on a 5-point scale.

Main Outcome Measures

Ratings of hypernasality for breathy and clear stimuli were analyzed using a repeated measures analysis of variance.

Results

The effects of breathy source on ratings of hypernasality were significant for the following filters: mild hypernasal /a/, severe hypernasal /a/, mild hypernasal /i/, and moderate hypernasal /i/. A post-hoc comparison test demonstrated that the more breathy sources (BH0 or BH2) generally increased the hypernasality score for mild hypernasal filters and decreased it for moderate and severe hypernasal filters. The less breathy sources (BH3, BH4, and BH5) hardly affected the ratings.

Conclusion

The effects of breathiness on ratings of hypernasality seem to moderate rather than to mask perceived hypernasality. That is, breathiness raises slight hypernasality, whereas it reduces severe hypernasality.

Keywords

breathy voice cleft palate hypernasality moderating effect

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrews

J.R.

Rutherford

Contribution of nasality emitted sound to the perception of hypernasality of vowels.

Cleft Palate J. 1972; 9: 147–156.

Boersma

Weenick

Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Available at: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/. Accessed December 30, 2004.

Bzoch

K.R.

Introduction to the study of communicative disorders in cleft palate and related craniofacial anomalies. In: Bzoch

K.R.

, ed., Communicative Disorders Related to Cleft Lip and Palate. 4th ed. Austin: PRO-ED; 1997: 3–44.

Chen

M.Y.

Acoustic correlates of English and French nasalized vowels.

J Acoust Soc Am. 1997; 102: 2360–2370.

D'Antonio

Muntz

Province

Marsh

Laryngeal findings in patients with velopharyngeal dysfunction.

Laryngoscope. 1998; 98: 432–438.

deKrom

A cepstrum-based technique for determining a harmonics-to-noise ratio in speech signals.

J Speech Hear Res. 1993; 36: 254–266.

Fant

G.M.

Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. The Hague: Mouton; 1960.

Flanagan

J.L.

Speech Analysis, Synthesis, and Perception. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1972.

Gerratt

B.R.

Kreiman

Measuring vocal quality with speech synthesis.

J Acoust Soc Am. 1980; 67: 971–995.

10.

Gold

Morgan

Speech and Audio Signal Processing: Processing and Perception of Speech and Music. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2000.

11.

Griffin

D.W.

Lim

J.S.

Multiband excitation vocoder.

IEEE Trans Acoust Speech Signal Process. 1998; 36: 1223–1235.

12.

Guyette

T.W.

Sanchez

A.J.

Smith

B.E.

Laryngeal airway resistance in cleft palate children with complete and incomplete velopharyngeal closure.

Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000; 37: 61–64.

13.

Hadjitodorov

Mitev

A computer system for acoustic analysis of pathological voices and laryngeal disease screening.

Med Eng Phys. 2002; 24: 419–429.

14.

Hess

D.A.

Pitch, intensity, and cleft palate voice quality.

J Speech Hear Res. 1959; 2: 113–125.

15.

Hillenbrand

Cleveland

R.A.

Erickson

Acoustic correlates of breathy vocal quality.

J Speech Hear Res. 1994; 37: 769–778.

16.

Hirano

: Clinical Examination of Voice. New York: Springer; 1981.

17.

Imai

Abe

Spectral envelope extraction by improved cepstral method.

Trans IECEJ. 1979; J62-4: 443–437.

18.

Imaizumi

Acoustic measures of roughness in pathological voice.

J Phonetics 1986; 14: 457–462.

19.

Imatomi

Arai

Kato

How hoarseness affects ratings of hypernasality: source-filter theory approach. In: Proceedings of the VIIIth Meeting of the International Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics Association. 2000.

20.

Imatomi

Arai

Mimura

Kato

Effect of hoarseness on hypernasality ratings. In:

Proceedings of Eurospeech 1999. 1999; 3: 1075–1078.

21.

Japan Society of Logopedics and Phoniatrics, The. The Sample Tape of Cleft Palate Speech. Tokyo: Medical Research Center; 1989.

22.

Kataoka

Warren

D.W.

Zajac

D.J.

Mayo

Lutz

R.W.

The relationship between spectral characteristics and perceived hypernasality in children.

J Acoust Soc Am. 2001b; 109: 2181–2189.

23.

Kataoka

Zajac

D.J.

Mayo

Lutz

R.W.

The influence of acoustic and perceptual factors on perceived hypernasality in the vowel /i/: a preliminary study.

Folia Phoniatr. 2001a; 53: 198–212.

24.

Kent

R.D.

Inverse Filtering. In: The Speech Sciences. London: Singular Publishing Group; 1997: 71–140.

25.

Klatt

D.H.

Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer.

J Acoust Soc Am. 1980; 67: 971–995.

26.

Kuehn

D.P.

Moller

K.T.

Speech and language issues in the cleft palate population: the state of the art.

Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000; 37: 348.

27.

Kummer

A.W.

Velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) and resonance disorders. In: Kummer

A.W.

, ed. Cleft Palate & Craniofacial Anomalies Effects of Speech and Resonance. San Diego: Singular; 2001; 145–176.

28.

Kreiman

Gerratt

B.R.

Validity of rating scale measures of voice quality.

J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 104: 1598–1608.

29.

Lewis

K.E.

Watterson

T.L.

Houghton

S.M.

The influence of listener experience and academic training on ratings of nasality.

J Speech Commun Dis. 2003; 36: 49–58.

30.

McHenry

M.A.

The effect of increased vocal effort on estimated velopharyngeal orifice area.

Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1997; 6: 55–61.

31.

McWilliams

B.J.

Lavorate

A.S.

Bluestone

C.D.

Vocal cord abnormalities in children with velopharyngeal valving problems.

Laryngoscope. 1973; 83: 1745–1753.

32.

McWilliams

B.J.

Morris

Shelton

Cleft Palate Speech. Philadelphia: BC Decker; 1990.

33.

Miyamoto

Yamagiwa

Tanaka

On the choice of error terms for testing simple main effects in the analysis of variance.

Jpn J Psychol. 1991; 62: 207–211.

34.

Okazaki

Ainoda

Kato

Kougairetsu no gengo rinsho. Tokyo: Igakushoin; 1997.

35.

Oppenheim

A.V.

Schafer

R.W.

Cepstrum analysis and homomorphic deconvolution. In: Discrete-Time Signal Processing. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1989: 768–834.

36.

Stevens SS. Perceptual magnitude and its measurement. In: Carterette

E.C.

Friedman

M.P.

, eds. Handbook of Perception. Vol. II: Psychophysical Judgment and Measurement. New York: Academic Press; 1974: 361–389.

37.

Yumoto

The quantitative evaluation of hoarseness—a new harmonics to noise ratio method.

Arch Otolaryngol. 1983; 109: 48–52.

38.

Van Riper

Erickson

R.L.

Speech Correction: An Introduction to Speech Pathology and Audiology. 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon; 1996.

39.

Warren

D.W.

Compensatory speech behavior in individual with cleft palate: a regulation/control phenomenon?

Cleft Palate J. 1986; 23: 251–260.

40.

Whitehill

T.L.

Lee

Chun

Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of hypernasality.

J Speech Hear Res. 2002; 45: 80–88.

41.

Zajac

D.J.

Linville

R.N.

Voice perturbations of children with perceived nasality and hoarseness.

Cleft Palate J. 1989; 26: 226–232.

42.

Zraick

R.I.

Liss

J.M.

A comparison of equal appearing interval scaling and direct magnitude estimation of nasal voice quality.

J Speech Hear Res. 2000a; 43: 979–988.

43.

Zraick

R.I.

Liss

J.M.

Dorman

M.F.

Case

J.L.

LaPointe

L.L.

Beals

S.P.

Multidimensional scaling of nasal voice quality.

J Speech Hear Res. 2000b; 43: 989–996.

Effects of Breathy Voice Source on Ratings of Hypernasality

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Participants

Main Outcome Measures

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References