The purpose of this study was to examine the relation of perceptual ratings of nasality by experienced listeners, measures of nasalance, and the size of the nasal port opening for three simulated English corner vowels, /i/, /u/, and /a/.
Design
Samples were generated using a computational model that allowed for exact control of nasal port size and a direct measure of nasalance. Perceptual ratings were obtained using a paired-stimulus presentation.
Participants
Five experienced listeners.
Main Outcome Measures
Measures of nasalance and perceptual nasality ratings.
Results
Differences in nasalance and perceptual ratings of nasality were noted among the three vowels, with values being greater for the high vowels /i/ and /u/ compared to the low vowel Id. Listeners detected nasality for the high and low vowels simulated with nasal port areas of 0.01 and 0.15 cm2, respectively. Correlations between ratings of nasality and nasalance were high for all three vowels.
Conclusions
Results of the present study show a high correlation between ratings of nasality and measures of nasalance for nasal port areas ranging from 0 to 0.5 cm2. The correlations were based on sustained vowel samples. The restricted speech sample limits generalization of the findings to clinical data; however, the results are a demonstration of the usefulness of modeling to understand the perceptual phenomena of nasality.
AndersonR.T.Nasometric values for normal Spanish-speaking females: a preliminary report.Cleft Palate J.1996; 33: 333–336.
2.
BrancampT.U.LewisK.E.WattersonT.The relationship between nasalance scores and nasality ratings obtained with equal appearing interval and direct magnitude estimation scaling methods.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2010; 47: 631–637.
3.
CarneyP.ShermanD.Severity of nasality in three selected speech tasks.J Speech Hear Res.1971; 14: 396–407.
4.
DalstonR.M.NeimanG.S.Gonzalez-LandaG.Nasometric sensitivity and specificity: a cross-dialect and cross-culture study.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1993; 30: 385–291.
5.
DalstonR.M.WarrenD.W.DalstonE.The use of nasometry as a diagnostic tool for identifying patients with velopharyngeal impairment.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1991; 28: 184–189.
6.
DalstonR.M.WarrenD.W.MorrK.E.SmitherL.R.Intraoral pressure and its relationship to velopharyngeal inadequacy.Cleft Palate J.1988; 25: 210–219.
7.
FantG.Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. The Hague: Mouton; 1961. Fletcher SG. Theory and instrumentation for qualitative measurement of nasality.Cleft Palate J.1970; 7: 601–609.
8.
FletcherS.G.AdamsL.E.McCutcheonJ.J.Cleft palate speech assessment through oral nasal acoustic measures. In: BzochK.R., ed. Communicative Disorders Related to Cleft Lip and Palate.Boston: Little Brown;1989: 246–257.
9.
FujimuraO.Spectra of nasalized vowels.MIT Res Lab Electronic Quarterly Progress Report.1960; 58: 214–218.
10.
FujimuraO.Analysis of nasalized vowels.MIT Res Lab Electronic Q Prog Rep.1961; 6: 191–192.
HardinM.A.Van DemarkD.R.MorrisH.L.PayneM.M.Correspondence between nasalance sores and listener judgments of hypernasality.Cleft Palate J.1992; 29: 346–351.
13.
HawkinsS.StevensK.N.A cross-language study of the perception of nasalized vowels.J Acoust Soc Am.1983; 73(Suppl 1): S54.
HillenbrandJ.GayvertR.T.Open source software for experiment design and control.J Speech Hear Res.2005; 48: 45–60.
16.
HouseA.S.StevensK.N.Analog study of the nasalization of vowels.J Speech Hear Dis.1956; 21: 218–232.
17.
KentR.D.Hearing and believing: some limits to the auditory-perceptual assessment of speech and voice disorders.Am J Speech Lang Pathol.1996; 5: 7–23.
18.
KummerA.W.BriggsM.LeeL.The relationship between the characteristics of speech and velopharyngeal gap size.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2003; 40: 590–596.
19.
LacziE.SussmanJ.StathopoulosE.HuberJ.Perceptual evaluation of hypernasality compared to HONC measures: the role of experience.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2005; 42: 203–211.
20.
LewisK.E.WattersonT.QuintT.The effect of vowels on nasalance scores.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2000; 37: 584–589.
21.
LiljencrantsJ.Speech Synthesis With a Reflection-Type Line Analog.Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology;1985. Dissertation.
22.
LintzL.B.ShermanD.Phonetic elements and perception of nasality.J Speech Hear Res.1961; 4: 381–396.
23.
LonchampF.Analyse acoustique des voyelles nasals francaises.Verbum.1979; 2: 9–54.
24.
MacKayI.R.KummerA.W.Simplified Nasometric Assessment Procedures.Lincoln Park, NJ: Kay Elemetrics;1994.
25.
McDonaldE.T.Koepp-BakerH.Cleft palate speech: an integration of research and clinical observation.J Speech Hear Dis.1951; 16: 9–20.
26.
MooreW.H.SommersR.K.Phonetic contexts: their effects on perceived nasality in cleft palate speakers.Cleft Palate J.1973; 10: 72–83.
27.
NellisJ.L.NeimanG.S.LehamnJ.A.Comparison of Nasometer and listener judgments of nasality in the assessment of velopharyngeal function after pharyngeal flap surgery.Cleft Palate J.1992; 29: 157–163.
28.
PereiraV.SellD.PonniahA.EvansR.DunawayD.Midface osteotomy versus distraction: the effect on speech, nasality, and velopharyngeal function in craniofacial dystosis.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2008; 45: 353–363.
29.
ShermanD.The merits of backward playing of connected speech.J Speech Hear Res.1954; 19: 312–321.
30.
ShrivastavR.SapienzaC.Application of psychometric theory to the measurement of voice quality using rating scales.J Speech Hear Res.2005; 48: 323–335.
31.
ShroutP.E.FleissJ.L.Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.Psychol Bull.1979; 2: 420–128.
32.
SpriestersbachD.C.PowersG.R.Nasality in isolated vowels and connected speech of cleft palate speakers.J Speech Hear Res.1959; 2: 40–45.
33.
StelckE.H.BoliekC.A.HaglerP.H.RiegerJ.M.Current practices for evaluation of resonance disorders in North America.Semin Speech Lang.2011; 32: 58–68.
34.
StoryB.H.Physiologically Based Speech Simulation Using an Enhanced Wave Reflection Model of the Vocal Tract.Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa;1995. Dissertation.
35.
StoryB.H.Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-based vocal tract area functions obtained from the same speaker in 1994 and 2002.J Acoust Soc Am.2008; 123: 327–335.
36.
TachimuraT.KotaniY.WataT.Nasalance scores in wearers of palatal lift prosthesis in comparison with normative data for Japanese.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2004; 41: 315–319.
37.
TitzeI.R.Parameterization of the glottal area, glottal flow, and vocal fold contact area.J Acoust Soc Am.1984; 75: 570–580.
38.
TitzeI.R.Regulating glottal airflow in phonation: application of the maximum power transfer theorem to a low dimensional phonation model.J Acoust Soc Am.2002; 111: 367–376.
39.
TitzeI.R.The Myoelastic Aerodynamic Theory of Phonation.Iowa City, IA: National Center for Voice and Speech;2006: 197–214.
40.
WarrenD.W.Nasal emission of air and velopharyngeal function.Cleft Palate J.1967; 4: 148–155.
41.
WarrenD.W.Perci: a method for rating palatal efficiency.Cleft Palate J.1979; 16: 279–285.
42.
WarrenD.W.DalstonR.M.MayoR.Hypernasality and velopharyngeal impairment.Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1994; 31: 257–262.
43.
WarrenD.W.DalstonR.M.MorrK.E.HairfieldW.M.SmithL.R.The speech regulating system: temporal and aerodynamic responses to velopharyngeal inadequacy.J Speech Hear Res.1989; 32: 566–575.
44.
WarrenD.W.DuBoisA.A pressure-flow technique for measuring velopharyngeal orifice area during continuous speech.Cleft Palate J.1964; 1: 52–71.
45.
WattersonT.EmanuelF.Effects of oral-nasal coupling on whispered vowel spectra.Cleft Palate J.1981; 18: 24–38.
46.
WattersonT.McFarlaneS.C.WrightD.S.The relationship between nasalance and nasality in children with cleft palate.J Commun Disord.1993; 26: 13–28.
47.
WhitehillT.L.LeeA.S.Y.ChunJ.C.Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of hypernasality.J Speech Hear Res.2002; 45: 80–88.
48.
ZemannW.GeichtingerM.SantlerG.KarcherH.Effects of Le Fort I osteotomy on nasalance scores [in German].Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir.2006; 10: 221–228.
49.
ZraickR.I.LissJ.M.A comparison of equal-appearing interval scaling and direct magnitude estimation of nasal voice quality.J Speech Hear Res.2000; 43: 979–988.
