OBJECTIVE: To compare some perceptual and acoustic characteristics of the voices of children who use the advanced combination encoder (ACE) or fine structure processing (FSP) speech coding strategies, and to investigate whether these characteristics differ from children with normal hearing. DESIGN: Acoustic analysis of the sustained vowel /a/ was performed using the multi-dimensional voice program (MDVP). Analyses of sequential and spontaneous speech were performed using the real time pitch. Perceptual analyses of these samples were performed using visual-analogic scales of pre-selected parameters. STUDY SAMPLE: Seventy-six children from three years to five years and 11 months of age participated. Twenty-eight were users of ACE, 23 were users of FSP, and 25 were children with normal hearing. RESULTS: Although both groups with CI presented with some deviated vocal features, the users of ACE presented with voice quality more like children with normal hearing than the users of FSP. CONCLUSIONS: Sound processing of ACE appeared to provide better conditions for auditory monitoring of the voice, and consequently, for better control of the voice production. However, these findings need to be further investigated due to the lack of comparative studies published to understand exactly which attributes of sound processing are responsible for differences in performance.
OBJECTIVE: To compare some perceptual and acoustic characteristics of the voices of children who use the advanced combination encoder (ACE) or fine structure processing (FSP) speech coding strategies, and to investigate whether these characteristics differ from children with normal hearing. DESIGN: Acoustic analysis of the sustained vowel /a/ was performed using the multi-dimensional voice program (MDVP). Analyses of sequential and spontaneous speech were performed using the real time pitch. Perceptual analyses of these samples were performed using visual-analogic scales of pre-selected parameters. STUDY SAMPLE: Seventy-six children from three years to five years and 11 months of age participated. Twenty-eight were users of ACE, 23 were users of FSP, and 25 were children with normal hearing. RESULTS: Although both groups with CI presented with some deviated vocal features, the users of ACE presented with voice quality more like children with normal hearing than the users of FSP. CONCLUSIONS: Sound processing of ACE appeared to provide better conditions for auditory monitoring of the voice, and consequently, for better control of the voice production. However, these findings need to be further investigated due to the lack of comparative studies published to understand exactly which attributes of sound processing are responsible for differences in performance.
Entities:
Keywords:
Voice; cochlear implantation; cochlear implants; fundamental frequency; hearing loss; quality of voice