Gabriela Zuin Ferreira1, Tim Bressmann2, Jennifer de Cássia Rillo Dutka3, Melina Evangelista Whitaker4, Gillian de Boer5, Viviane Cristina de Castro Marino6, Maria Inês Pegoraro-Krook7. 1. Speech-Language and Audiology Department, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru and Graduate Programs at the Universidade de São Paulo (USP), 9-75 Alameda Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, Bauru, SP, CEP 17012-901, Brazil. Electronic address: gabizuin@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Speech-Language Pathology, University of Toronto (UofT), University Ave, 500, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada. Electronic address: tim.Bressmann@utoronto.ca. 3. Speech-Language and Audiology Department, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru and Graduate Programs at the Universidade de São Paulo (USP), 9-75 Alameda Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, Bauru, SP, CEP 17012-901, Brazil; Palatal Prosthesis Services, Hospital for the Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo (HRAC/USP), Rua Sílvio Marchione, 3-20, Vila Universitária, Bauru, SP, CEP 17012-900, Brazil. Electronic address: jdutka@usp.br. 4. Palatal Prosthesis Services, Hospital for the Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo (HRAC/USP), Rua Sílvio Marchione, 3-20, Vila Universitária, Bauru, SP, CEP 17012-900, Brazil. Electronic address: melwhi@usp.br. 5. Department of Speech-Language Pathology, University of Toronto (UofT), University Ave, 500, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada. Electronic address: gillian.deboer@mail.utoronto.ca. 6. Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências, Campus de Marília, Av. Higino Muzzi Filho, 737, Marília, SP, CEP 17525-900, Brazil. Electronic address: vivianemarino2@yahoo.com.br. 7. Speech-Language and Audiology Department, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru and Graduate Programs at the Universidade de São Paulo (USP), 9-75 Alameda Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, Bauru, SP, CEP 17012-901, Brazil; Palatal Prosthesis Services, Hospital for the Rehabilitation of Craniofacial Anomalies, University of São Paulo (HRAC/USP), Rua Sílvio Marchione, 3-20, Vila Universitária, Bauru, SP, CEP 17012-900, Brazil. Electronic address: mikrook@usp.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the combination of a speech bulb with an intensive speech therapy program in hypernasal participants with cleft palate. METHODS: Twenty hypernasal speakers with cleft palate (12 females and 8 males, median age 28.45 years), who were wearing speech bulbs underwent an intensive speech therapy program of 45 sessions over 3 weeks. Three experienced speech-language pathologists rated the participants' speech recordings before and after intensive speech therapy, with and without the speech bulb. Nasometric recordings and long-term averaged spectra were also analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVAs. RESULTS: The ANOVA of the hypernasality ratings showed significant effects of therapy [F (1,19) = 15.97; p < .001], speech bulb [F(1,190 = 28.54, p < .001] and a therapy -speech bulb interaction effect [F(1.19) = 22.30, p < 0.001]. The most favorable listener ratings of hypernasality were obtained post-therapy when participants were wearing their speech bulbs. Without the speech bulb, intensive speech therapy by itself did not result in a significant improvement. With speech bulb, nasalance scores for high [F (1,19) = 14.07, p < .001] and low pressure [F (1,19) = 14.84, p < .001] sentences were significantly lower post-therapy, providing preliminary evidence that an intensive speech therapy program may enhance the effect of a speech bulb. Before and after comparisons of individual nasalance profiles demonstrated variable improvement in 15 participants, no progress in 2 participants and more severe hypernasality after therapy in 3 participants. Long-term averaged spectra corroborated the findings of the perceptual analysis. Based on a frequency bin from 201 to 300 Hz, there was a significant within-subject effect for with and without speech bulb [F(1, 18) = 4.54, p = .047] as well as for before vs. after session [F (1,18) = 7.14, p = .015]. CONCLUSION: The speech bulb in combination with intensive speech therapy resulted in improved oral-nasal balance for the majority of participants. More research is needed to investigate long-term outcomes as well as individual factors contributing to therapy success.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the combination of a speech bulb with an intensive speech therapy program in hypernasal participants with cleft palate. METHODS: Twenty hypernasal speakers with cleft palate (12 females and 8 males, median age 28.45 years), who were wearing speech bulbs underwent an intensive speech therapy program of 45 sessions over 3 weeks. Three experienced speech-language pathologists rated the participants' speech recordings before and after intensive speech therapy, with and without the speech bulb. Nasometric recordings and long-term averaged spectra were also analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVAs. RESULTS: The ANOVA of the hypernasality ratings showed significant effects of therapy [F (1,19) = 15.97; p < .001], speech bulb [F(1,190 = 28.54, p < .001] and a therapy -speech bulb interaction effect [F(1.19) = 22.30, p < 0.001]. The most favorable listener ratings of hypernasality were obtained post-therapy when participants were wearing their speech bulbs. Without the speech bulb, intensive speech therapy by itself did not result in a significant improvement. With speech bulb, nasalance scores for high [F (1,19) = 14.07, p < .001] and low pressure [F (1,19) = 14.84, p < .001] sentences were significantly lower post-therapy, providing preliminary evidence that an intensive speech therapy program may enhance the effect of a speech bulb. Before and after comparisons of individual nasalance profiles demonstrated variable improvement in 15 participants, no progress in 2 participants and more severe hypernasality after therapy in 3 participants. Long-term averaged spectra corroborated the findings of the perceptual analysis. Based on a frequency bin from 201 to 300 Hz, there was a significant within-subject effect for with and without speech bulb [F(1, 18) = 4.54, p = .047] as well as for before vs. after session [F (1,18) = 7.14, p = .015]. CONCLUSION: The speech bulb in combination with intensive speech therapy resulted in improved oral-nasal balance for the majority of participants. More research is needed to investigate long-term outcomes as well as individual factors contributing to therapy success.