Perceptual evaluation of hypernasality compared to HONC measures: The role of experience

Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 202-211

  Laczi, Elizabeth ^a   Sussman, Joan E ^a   Stathopoulos, Elaine T ^a   Huber, Jessica ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

HONC; Hypernasality; Listener experience; Perceptual ratings

Indexed keywords

ACCELEROMETER; ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CLEFT LIP; CLEFT PALATE; COMMUNICATION DISORDER; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MEDICAL EXPERT; NOSE; PHONETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH THERAPY;

ADOLESCENT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CLEFT PALATE; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; REFERENCE STANDARDS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; SPEECH PRODUCTION MEASUREMENT; VELOPHARYNGEAL INSUFFICIENCY; VIBRATION; VOICE DISORDERS;

EID: 14844343480     PISSN: 10556656     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1597/03-011.1     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Bradford LJ, Brooks AR, Shelton RL. Clinical judgment of hypernasality in cleft palate children. Cleft Palate J. 1964;1:329-335.
2. Bressmann T, Sader R, Whitehill TL, Awan SN, Zeilhofer H-N, Horch H-H. Nasalance distance and ratio: two new measures. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37:248-256.
3. Dalston RM, Neiman GS, Gonzalez-Landa G. Nasometric sensitivity and specificity: a cross-dialect and cross-culture study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993;30:285-291.
4. Dalston RM, Seaver EJ. Relative values of various standardized passages in the nasometric assessement of patients with velopharyngeal function. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29:17-21.
5. Dalston RM, Warren DW, Dalston ET. Use of nasometry as a diagnostic tool for identifying patients with velopharyngeal impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991;28:184-188.
6. Darley F, Aronson A, Brown J. Differential diagnostic patterns of dysarthria. J Speech Hear Res. 1969;12:246-269.
7. Fletcher SG, Adams LE, McCutcheon MJ. Cleft palate speech assessment through oral-nasal acoustic measures. In: Bzoch KR, ed. Communicative Disorders Related to Cleft Lip and Palate. Boston: Little, Brown; 1989:246-257.
8. Fritzell B. The velopharyngeal muscles in speech. Acta Otolaryngol. 1969;Suppl:250.
9. Gerratt BR, Kreiman J, Antonanzas-Barroso N, Berke G. Comparing internal and external standards in voice quality judgments. J Speech Hear Res. 1993;36:14-20.
10. Hardin MA, Van Demark DR, Morris HL, Payne M. Correspondence between nasalance scores and listener judgments of hypernasality and hyponasality. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29:346-351.
11. Horii Y. An accelerometric approach to nasality measurement: a preliminary report. Cleft Palate J. 1980;17:254-261.
12. Horii Y, Lang J. Distributional analyses of an index of nasal coupling in simulated hypernasal speech. Cleft Palate J. 1981;18:279-285.
13. Horii Y, Monroe N. Auditory and visual feedback of nasalization using a modified accelerometric method. J Speech Hear Res. 1983;26:472-475.
14. Jones DL. The relationship between temporal aspects of oral-nasal balance and classification of velopharyngeal status in speakers with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37:363-369.
15. Karling J, Larson O, Leanderson R, Galyas K, Serpa-Leitao A. NORAM - an instrument used in the assessment of hypernasality: a clinical investigation. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993;30:135-140.
16. Kent RD. Hearing and believing: some limits to the auditory-perceptual assessment of speech and voice disorders. Am J Speech Long Pathol. 1996;5:7-23.
17. Kent RD, Liss J, Philips BJ. Acoustic analysis of velopharyngeal dysfunction. In: Bzoch KR, ed. Communicative Disorders Related to Cleft Lip and Palate. 3rd ed. Boston: Little, Brown; 1989:258-270.
18. Kent RD, Read C. The Acoustic Analysis of Speech. San Diego: Singular Publishing; 1992.
19. Keuning KH, Wieneke GH, van Wijngaarden HA, Dejonckere PH. The correlation between nasalance and a differentiated rating of speech in Dutch patients with velopharyngeal insufficiency. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39:277-283.
20. Kreiman J, Gerratt B, Kempster G, Erman A, Berke G. Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research. J Speech Hear Res. 1993;36:21-40.
21. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Precoda K. Listener experience and perception of voice quality. J Speech Hear Res. 1990;33:103-115.
22. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Precoda K, Berke GS. Individual differences in voice quality perception. J Speech Hear Res. 1992;35:512-520.
23. Litzaw LL, Dalston RM. The effects of gender upon nasalance among normal adult speakers. J Comm Dis. 1992;25:55-64.
24. Max L, Onghena P. Some issues in the statistical analysis of completely randomized and repeated measures designs for speech, language, and hearing research. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1999;42:261-270.
25. McWilliams BJ, Morris HL, Shelton RL. Cleft Palate Speech. Philadelphia: BC Decker; 1990.
26. Milenkovic P. Cspeech: computer waveform acquisition editor and analysis software, version 4.1. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin; 1994.
27. Moll KL. Velopharyngeal closure on vowels. J Speech Hear Res. 1962;5:30-40.
28. Mra Z, Sussman J, Fenwick J. HONC measures in 4- to 6-year old children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1998;35:408-414.
29. Nellis JL, Neiman GS, Lehman JA. 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.
30. Paynter ET, Watterson TL, Boose WT. The relationship between nasalance and listener judgments. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association; 1991; Hilton Head, SC.
31. Peterson-Falzone SJ, Hardin-Jones MA, Karnell MP. Cleft Palate Speech. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2001.
32. Redenbaugh M, Reich A. Correspondence between an accelerometric nasal/voice amplitude ratio and listeners' direct magnitude estimation of hypernasality. J Speech Hear Res. 1985;27:266-270.
33. Reich A, Redenbaugh M. Relation between nasal/voice accelerometric values and interval estimates of hypernasality. Cleft Palate J. 1985;28:273-281.
34. Seaver EJ, Dalston RM, Leeper HA, Adams LE. A study of nasometric values for normal nasal resonance. J Speech Hear Res. 1991;34:715-721.
35. SPSS. SPSS for Windows, Standard Version, version 10.0.5. Chicago: SPSS; 1999.
36. Sussman J. HONC measures in men and women: validity and variability. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1995;32:37-48.
37. Van Demark D, Bzoch K, Daly D, Fletcher S, McWilliams BJ, Pannbacker M, Weinberg B. Methods of assessing speech in relation to velopharyngeal function. Cleft Palate J. 1985;22:281-285.
38. Warren DW, Dalston RM, Mayo R. Hypernasality and velopharyngeal impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1994;31:257-262.
39. Warren DW. DuBois A. A pressure-flow technique for measuring velopharyngeal orifice area during speech. Cleft Palate J. 1964;1:52-71.
40. Watterson T, Hinton J, McFarlane S. Novel stimuli for obtaining nasalance measures from young children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996;33:67-73.
41. Watterson T, McFarlane SC, Wright DS. The relationship between nasalance and nasality in children with cleft palate. J Comm Dis. 1993;26:13-28.
42. Weinberg B, Noll JD, Donohue M. TONAR calibration: a brief note. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1979;16:158-161.
43. Whitehill TL, Lee A, Chun JC. Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of hypernasality. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;45:80-88.
44. Zajac DJ, Lutz R, Mayo R. Microphone sensitivity as a source of variation in nasalance scores. J Speech Hear Res. 1996;39:1228-1331.
45. Zraick RI, Liss JM. A comparison of equal-appearing interval scaling and direct magnitude estimation of nasal voice quality. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43:979-988.