Literature DB >> 17571273

Automatic evaluation of prosodic features of tracheoesophageal substitute voice.

Tino Haderlein1, Elmar Nöth, Hikmet Toy, Anton Batliner, Maria Schuster, Ulrich Eysholdt, Joachim Hornegger, Frank Rosanowski.   

Abstract

In comparison with laryngeal voice, substitute voice after laryngectomy is characterized by restricted aero-acoustic properties. Until now, an objective means of prosodic differences between substitute and normal voices does not exist. In a pilot study, we applied an automatic prosody analysis module to 18 speech samples of laryngectomees (age: 64.2 +/- 8.3 years) and 18 recordings of normal speakers of the same age (65.4 +/- 7.6 years). Ninety-five different features per word based upon the speech energy, fundamental frequency F(0) and duration measures on words, pauses and voiced/voiceless sections were measured. These reflect aspects of loudness, pitch and articulation rate. Subjective evaluation of the 18 patients' voices was performed by a panel of five experts on the criteria "noise", "speech effort", "roughness", "intelligibility", "match of breath and sense units" and "overall quality". These ratings were compared to the automatically computed features. Several of them could be identified being twice as high for the laryngectomees compared to the normal speakers, and vice versa. Comparing the evaluation data of the human experts and the automatic rating, correlation coefficients of up to 0.84 were measured. The automatic analysis serves as a good means to objectify and quantify the global speech outcome of laryngectomees. Even better results are expected when both the computation of the features and the comparison method to the human ratings will have been revised and adapted to the special properties of the substitute voices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17571273     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-007-0363-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  12 in total

1.  An acoustic analysis of excellent female esophageal, tracheoesophageal, and laryngeal speakers.

Authors:  M H Bellandese; J W Lerman; H R Gilbert
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Aerodynamics of esophageal voice production with and without a Groningen voice prosthesis.

Authors:  H K Schutte; G J Nieboer
Journal:  Folia Phoniatr Logop       Date:  2002 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 0.849

3.  Comparison of speaking rate, articulation rate and alternating motion rate in dysarthric speakers.

Authors:  Masaki Nishio; Seiji Niimi
Journal:  Folia Phoniatr Logop       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 0.849

4.  Acoustic cues to the voicing feature in tracheoesophageal speech.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Searl; Mary A Carpenter
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  A comparative acoustic study of normal, esophageal, and tracheoesophageal speech production.

Authors:  J Robbins; H B Fisher; E C Blom; M I Singer
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1984-05

6.  Perception of intonational contrasts in alaryngeal speech.

Authors:  J Gandour; B Weinberg
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1983-03

7.  Quality of life in laryngectomees after prosthetic voice restoration.

Authors:  Maria Schuster; Jörg Lohscheller; Peter Kummer; Ulrich Hoppe; Ulrich Eysholdt; Frank Rosanowski
Journal:  Folia Phoniatr Logop       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 0.849

Review 8.  Postlaryngectomy voice rehabilitation: state of the art at the millennium.

Authors:  Dale H Brown; Frans J M Hilgers; Jonathan C Irish; Alfons J M Balm
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Objective evaluation of the quality of substitution voices.

Authors:  Mieke Moerman; Glenn Pieters; Jean-Pierre Martens; Marie-Jeanne Van der Borgt; Phillippe Dejonckere
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2004-01-15       Impact factor: 2.503

10.  Psychosocial impact of laryngectomy mediated by perceived stigma and illness intrusiveness.

Authors:  G M Devins; H J Stam; J P Koopmans
Journal:  Can J Psychiatry       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 4.356

View more
  5 in total

1.  Analysis of snoring sound by psychoacoustic parameters.

Authors:  Michael Herzog; Thomas Bremert; Beatrice Herzog; Werner Hosemann; Holger Kaftan; Alexander Müller
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-09-22       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  The use of automatic speech recognition showing the influence of nasality on speech intelligibility.

Authors:  S Mayr; K Burkhardt; M Schuster; K Rogler; A Maier; H Iro
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-04-27       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  [Perceptual and automatic voice and speech analysis of chronic laryngitis and T1 vocal cord cancer].

Authors:  B Bartke; T Haderlein; M Döllinger; E Nöth; S Graf; U Eysholdt; A Ziethe
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 4.  Outcome measurements after oral cancer treatment: speech and speech-related aspects--an overview.

Authors:  M Schuster; F Stelzle
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2012-08-03

5.  Automatic Evaluation of Voice Quality Using Text-Based Laryngograph Measurements and Prosodic Analysis.

Authors:  Tino Haderlein; Cornelia Schwemmle; Michael Döllinger; Václav Matoušek; Martin Ptok; Elmar Nöth
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 2.238

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.