Features of listeners affecting the perceptions of mandarin electrolaryngeal speech

Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica

Volumn 57, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 9-19

  Liu, Hanjun ^a   Wan, Mingxi ^a   Wang, Supin ^a  

^a XI'AN JIAOTONG UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Acceptability; Alaryngeal speech; Intelligibility; Tone

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHARYNX; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEX RATIO; SPEECH;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SEX FACTORS; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH, ALARYNGEAL;

EID: 12444249969     PISSN: 10217762     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000081957     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Gates GA, Ryan W, Cooper JC Jr, Lawlis GF, Cantu E, Hayashi T, Lauder E, Welch RW, Heaarne E: Current Status of laryngectomee rehabilitation. 1. Results of therapy. Am J Otolaryngol 1982;3:1-7.
2. Hillman R, Walsh M, Wolf G, Fisher S, Hong W: Functional outcomes following treatment for advanced laryngeal cancer. 1. Voice preservation in advanced laryngeal cancer. 2. Laryngectomy rehabilitation: The state-of-the-art in the VA system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1998; 107(suppl 172):1-27.
3. Choi HS, Park YJ, Lee SM, Kim KM: Functional characteristics of a new electrolarynx 'Evada' having a force sensing resistor sensor. J Voice 2001;15:592-599.
4. Karen C, Joel M: Utilization of microprocessors in voice quality improvement: The electrolarynx. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck 2000;8:138-142.
5. Hyrnan M: An experimental study of artificial larynx and esophageal speech. J Speech Hear Disord 1995;20:291-299.
6. Most T, Tobin Y, Cohn-Mimran R: Acoustic and perceptual characteristics of esophageal and tracheoesophageal speech production. J Commun Disord 2000;33:165-181.
7. Weiss MS, Yeni-Komshian GH, Heinz JM: Acoustical and perceptual characteristics of speech produced with an electronic artificial larynx. J Acoust Soc Am 1979;65: 1298-1308.
8. Kalb MB, Carpenter MA: Individual speaker influence on relative intelligibility of esophageal and artificial larynx speech. J Speech Hear Disord 1981;46:77-80.
9. McCroskey RL, Mulligan M: The relative intelligibility of esophageal speech and artificial larynx speech. J Speech Hear Disord 1963;28:37-41.
10. Gandour J, Weinberg B, Garzione B: Perception of lexical stress in alaryngeal speech. J Speech Hear Res 1983;26:418-424.
11. Williams SE, Watson JB: Differences in speaking proficiency in three laryngectomy groups. Arch Otolaryngol 1985;111:216-219.
12. Weiss MS, Basili AG: Electrolaryngeal speech produced by laryngectomized subjects: Perceptual characteristics. J Speech Hear Res 1985;28:294-300.
13. Gandour J, Weinberg B: Production of syntactic stress in alaryngeal speech. Lang Speech 1985;28:295-306.
14. Clark JG, Stemple JC: Assessment of three modes of alaryngeal speech with a synthetic sentence identification (SSI) task in varying messageto-competition ratios. J Speech Hear Res 1986;25:333-338.
15. Holly SC, Lernman J, Randolph K: A comparison of the intelligibility of esophageal, electrolarynx, and normal speech in quiet and in noise. J Commun Disord 1983;16:143-155.
16. Gandour J, Weinberg B, Petty SH, Dardarananda R: Tone in Thai alaryngeal speech. J Speech Hear Res 1988;53:23-29.
17. Ching TYC, Williams R, Van Hasset A: Communication of lexical tones in Cantonese alaryngeal speech. J Speech Hear Res 1994;37:557-571.
18. Ng M, Kwok C, Chow S: Speech performance of adult Cantonese-speaking laryngectomees using different types of alaryngeal phonation. J Voice 1997;11:338-344.
19. Ng M, Lerman J, Gilbert H: Perceptions of tonal changes in normal laryngeal, esophageal, and artificial laryngeal male Cantonese speakers. Folia Phoniatr Logo 1998;50:64-70.
20. Ng M, Gilbert H, Lerman J: Fundamental frequency, intensity, and vowel duration characteristics related to perception of Cantonese alaryngeal speech. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2001;53:36-47.
21. Yiu EM, van Hasselt CA, Williams SR, Woo JKS: Speech intelligibility in tone language (Chinese) laryngectomy speakers. Eur J Disord Commun 1994;29:339-347.
22. Gandour J, Weinberg B, Petty SH: Rhythm in Thai esophageal speech. J Speech Hear Res 1986;29:563-568.
23. Doyle PC, Swift ER, Haaf RG: Effects of listener sophistication on judgment of tracheoesophageal talker intelligibility. J Commun Disord 1989;22:105-113.
24. Miralles J, Cervera T: Voice intelligibility in patients who have undergone laryngectomies. J Speech Hear Res 1995;38:564-571.
25. McColl D, Fucci D, Petrosino L, Martin DE, McCaffrey P: Listener ratings of the intelligibility of tracheoesophageal speech in noise. J Commun Disord 1998;31:279-289.
26. Xu Y: Contextual tonal variation in Mandarin. J. Phonet 1997;25:61-83.
27. http://chinese.pku.edu.cn/yuyinyj/ beifeng.html.
28. http://web2.zjedu.org/pth.hz.zj.cn3/ dagang.htm25.
29. Eady S: Differences in the F0 patterns speech: Tone language versus stress language. Lang Speech 1982; 25:29-42.