ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
No AccessJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing ResearchResearch Article1 Aug 2005

Impact of Aberrant Acoustic Properties on the Perception of Sound Quality in Electrolarynx Speech

    https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/053)

    A large percentage of patients who have undergone laryngectomy to treat advanced laryngeal cancer rely on an electrolarynx (EL) to communicate verbally. Although serviceable, EL speech is plagued by shortcomings in both sound quality and intelligibility. This study sought to better quantify the relative contributions of previously identified acoustic abnormalities to the perception of degraded quality in EL speech. Ten normal listeners evaluated the sound quality of EL speech tokens that had been acoustically enhanced by (a) increased low-frequency energy, (b) EL-noise reduction, and (c) fundamental frequency variation to mimic normal pitch intonation in relation to nonenhanced EL speech, normal speech, and normal monotonous speech (fundamental frequency variation removed). In comparing all possible combinations of token pairs, listeners were asked to identify which one of each pair sounded most like normal natural speech, and then to rate on a visual analog scale how different the chosen token was from normal speech. The results indicate that although EL speech can be most improved by removing the EL noise and providing proper pitch information, the resulting quality is still well below that of normal natural speech or even that of monotonous natural speech. This suggests that, in addition to the widely acknowledged acoustic abnormalities examined in this investigation, there are other attributes that contribute significantly to the unnatural quality of EL speech. Such additional factors need to be clearly identified and remedied before EL speech can be made to more closely approximate the sound quality of normal natural speech.

    References

    • Barney, H. L., Haworth, F. E., & Dunn, H. K. (1959). An experimental transistorized artificial larynx ..Weinberg (Ed.) Readings in speech following total laryngectomy (pp. 1337–1356). Baltimore: University Park Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Cole, D., Sridharan,S., Moody, M., & Geva, S. (1997). Application of noise reduction techniques for alaryngeal speech enhancement..Proceedings of IEEE TENCON ”97. IEEE Region 10 Annual Conference. Speech and Image Technologies for Computing and Telecommunications, 2, 491–494.
      Google Scholar
    • Crystal, T. H., & House, A. S. (1982). Segmental durations in connected speech signals: Preliminary results.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 72, 705–717.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Diedrich, W., & Youngstrom, K. (1977). Alaryngeal speech. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas..
      Google Scholar
    • Edwards, A. L. (1957). Techniques of attitude scale construction.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
      Google Scholar
    • Espy-Wilson, C. Y., Chari, V. R., MacAuslan, J. M., Huang, C. B., & Walsh, M. J. (1998). Enhancement of electrolaryngeal speech by adaptive filtering.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1253–1264.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Gates, G. A., Ryan, W., Cantu, E., & Hearne, E. (1982). Current status of laryngectomee rehabilitation: II. Causes of failure.American Journal of Otolaryngology, 3, 8–14.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Gates, G. A., Ryan, W., Cooper, J. C., Jr., Lawlis, G. F., Cantu, E., & Hayashi, T., et al. (1982). Current status of laryngectomee rehabilitation: I. Results of therapy.American Journal of Otolaryngology, 3, 1–7.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Gray, S., & Konrad, H. R. (1976). Laryngectomy: Postsurgical rehabilitation of communication.Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 57, 140–142.
      Google Scholar
    • Harris, R. J. (2001). A primer of multivariate statistics.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
      Google Scholar
    • Heaton, J., Goldstein, E., Kobler, J., Zeitels, S., Randolph, G., & Walsh, M., et al. (2004). Surface electromyographic activity in total laryngectomees following laryngeal nerve transfer to neck strap muscles: Correlation with vocal and non-vocal behaviors..Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 109, 972–980.
      Google Scholar
    • Hillman, R. E., Walsh, M. J., Wolf, G. T., Fisher, S. G., & Hong, W. K. (1998). Functional outcomes following treatment for advanced laryngeal cancer. Part I–Voice preservation in advanced laryngeal cancer. Part II– Laryngectomy rehabilitation: The state of the art in the VA System. Research Speech-Language Pathologists. Department of Veterans Affairs Laryngeal Cancer Study Group.Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology Supplement, 172, 1–27.
      Google Scholar
    • House, A. S., & Stevens, K. N. (1958). Estimation of formant bandwidths from measurements of transient response of the vocal tract.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1, 309–315.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Kaiser, H. F., & Serlin, R. H. (1978). Contributions to the method of paired comparisons.Applied Psychological Measurement, 2, 421–430.
      Google Scholar
    • King, P. S., Fowlks, E. W., & Peirson, G. A. (1968). Rehabilitation and adaptation of laryngectomy patients..American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 47, 192–203.
      Google Scholar
    • Kommers, M. S., & Sullivan, M. D. (1979). Wives” evaluation of problems related to laryngectomy.Journal of Communication Disorders, 12, 411–430.
      Google Scholar
    • Kreiman, J., Gerratt, B. R., Kempster, G. B., Erman, A., & Berke,G. (1993). Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: Review, tutorial, and a framework for future research.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 21–40.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Krus, D. J., & Krus, P. (1977). Normal scaling of dominance matrices: The domain-referenced model.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 189–193.
      Google Scholar
    • Ma, K., Demirel, P., Espy-Wilson, C., & MacAuslan, J. (1999). Improvement of electrolarynx speech by introducing normal excitation information.Proceedings of the European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (EUROSPEECH), Budapest, 1999, 323–326.
      Google Scholar
    • McCree, A. V., & Barnwell, T. P. (1995). A mixed excitation LPC vocoders model for low bit rate speech coding.Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing ”95, 3, 242–250.
      Google Scholar
    • Meltzner, G. S. (2003). Perceptual and acoustic impacts of aberrant properties of electrolaryngeal speech. (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003).Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 4486.
      Google Scholar
    • Meltzner, G. S., Hillman, R. E., Heaton, J., Houston, K., Kobler, J. B., & Qi, Y. (2005). Electrolarynx speech: The state-of-the-art and future directions for development .In P. C. Doyle & R. L. Keith (Eds.) Contemporary considerations in the treatment and rehabilitation of head and neck cancer: Voice, speech, and swallowing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
      Google Scholar
    • Meltzner, G. S., Kobler, J. B., & Hillman, R. E. (2003). Measuring the neck frequency response function of laryngectomy patients: Implications for the design of electrolarynx devices.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 1035–1047.
      Google Scholar
    • Mitchell, H. L., Hoit, J. D., & Watson, P. J. (1996). Cognitive–linguistic demands and speech breathing.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 93–104.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Morris, H. L., Smith, A. E., Van Demark, D. R., & Maves, M. D. (1992). Communication status following laryngectomy: The Iowa experience 1984-1987.Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 101, 503–510.
      Google Scholar
    • Mosteller, F. (1951). Remarks on the method of paired comparisons II: The effect of an aberrant standard deviation when equal standard deviations and equal correlations are assumed.Psychometrika, 16, 207–218.
      Google Scholar
    • Moulines, E., & Charpentier, F. (1990). Pitch-synchronous waveform processing techniques for text-to-speech synthesis using diphones.Speech Communication, 9, 453–467.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Poulton, E. C. (1989). Bias in quantifying judgments.Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum.
      Google Scholar
    • Qi, Y. Y., & Weinberg, B. (1991). Low-frequency energy deficit in electrolaryngeal speech.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1250–1256.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Richardson, J., & Bourque, L. (1985). Communication after laryngectomy.Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 3, 83–97.
      Google Scholar
    • Sisty, N. L., & Weinberg, B. (1972). Formant frequency characteristics of esophageal speech.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 15, 439–448.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Stevens, K. N. (1998). Acoustic phonetics.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychology Review. 34, 273–286.
      Google Scholar
    • Torgerson, W. S. (1957). Theory and methods of scaling.New York: Wiley.
      Google Scholar
    • Uemi, N., Ifukube, T., Takahashi, M., & Matsushima, J. (1994). Design of a new electrolarynx having a pitch control function.IEEE Workshop on Robot and Human, 198–202.
      Google Scholar
    • U.S. Department of Defense. (1999). Analog-to-digital conversion of voice by 2,400 bit/second mixed excitation linear prediction (MELP) (MIL-STD-3005).Philadelphia: Author.
      Google Scholar
    • Webster, P. M., & Duguay, M. J. (1990). Surgeons” reported attitudes and practices regarding alaryngeal speech.Annals Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, 99, 197–200.
      Google Scholar
    • Weiss, M. S., & Basili, A. G. (1985). Electrolaryngeal speech produced by laryngectomized subjects: Perceptual characteristics.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 294–300.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Weiss, M. S., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Heinz, J. M. (1979). Acoustical and perceptual characteristics of speech produced with an electronic artificial larynx.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 65, 1298–1308.
      Google Scholar

    Additional Resources