The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Gender difference in speech intelligibility using speech intelligibility tests and acoustic analyses

  • Kwon, Ho-Beom (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2010.09.01
  • Accepted : 2010.09.16
  • Published : 2010.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to compare men with women in terms of speech intelligibility, to investigate the validity of objective acoustic parameters related with speech intelligibility, and to try to set up the standard data for the future study in various field in prosthodontics. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty men and women were served as subjects in the present study. After recording of sample sounds, speech intelligibility tests by three speech pathologists and acoustic analyses were performed. Comparison of the speech intelligibility test scores and acoustic parameters such as fundamental frequency, fundamental frequency range, formant frequency, formant ranges, vowel working space area, and vowel dispersion were done between men and women. In addition, the correlations between the speech intelligibility values and acoustic variables were analyzed. RESULTS. Women showed significantly higher speech intelligibility scores than men and there were significant difference between men and women in most of acoustic parameters used in the present study. However, the correlations between the speech intelligibility scores and acoustic parameters were low. CONCLUSION. Speech intelligibility test and acoustic parameters used in the present study were effective in differentiating male voice from female voice and their values might be used in the future studies related patients involved with maxillofacial prosthodontics. However, further studies are needed on the correlation between speech intelligibility tests and objective acoustic parameters.

Keywords

References

  1. Plank DM, Weinberg B, Chalian VA. Evaluation of speech following prosthetic obturation of surgically acquired maxillary defects. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45:626-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(81)90423-6
  2. Yoshida H, Michi K, Ohsawa T. Prosthetic treatment of speech disorders due to surgically acquired maxillary defects. J Oral Rehab 1990;17:565-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1990.tb01427.x
  3. Beumer J, Curtis TA, Marunick MT. Maxillofacial rehabilitation: Prosthodontic and surgical considerations. St. Louis; Elsevier; 1996. p. 225-84.
  4. Kipfmueller LJ, Lang BR. Presurgical maxillary prosthesis: an analysis of speech intelligibility. J Prosthet Dent 1972;28:620-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(72)90111-4
  5. Majid AA, Weinberg B, Chalian VA. Speech intelligibility following prosthetic obturation of surgically acquired maxillary defects. J Prosthet Dent 1974;32:87-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(74)90104-8
  6. Rogers CL, DeMasi TM, Krause JC. Conversational and clear speech intelligibility of /bVd/ syllables produced by native and nonnative English speakers. J Acoust Soc Am 2010;128:410-23. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3436523
  7. Mahanna GK, Beukelman DR, Marshall JA, Gaebler CA, Sullivan M. Obturator prostheses after cancer surgery: an approach to speech outcome assessment. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:310-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70243-4
  8. Umino S, Masuda G, Ono S, Fujita K. Speech intelligibility following maxillectomy with and without a prosthesis: an analysis of 54 cases. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:153-8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00238.x
  9. Nygaard LC, SommersMS, Posoni DB. Effects of stimulus variability on perception and representation of speaking words in memory. Percept Psychophys 1995;57:989-1001. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205458
  10. Bradlow AR, Torretta GM, Pisoni DB. Intelligibility of normal speech I: Global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics. Speech Communication 1997;20:255-72.
  11. Klatt D, Klatt L. Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers. J Acoust Soc Am 1990;87:820-57. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.398894
  12. Hanson HM. Glottal characteristics of female speakers- Acoustic, physiological, and perceptual correlates. J Acoust Soc Am 1997;101:466-81. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.417991
  13. Vorperian HK, Kent RD. Vowel acoustic space development in children: a synthesis of acoustic and anatomic data. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007;50:1510-45. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/104)
  14. Byrd D. Relations of sex and dialect to reduction. Speech Communication 1994;15:39-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6393(94)90039-6
  15. Bond ZS, Moore TJ.A note on the acoustic phonetic characteristics of inadvertently clear speech. Speech Communication 1994;14:325-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6393(94)90026-4
  16. Peterson G, Barney H. Control methods used in a study of the vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 1952;24:175-84. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1906875
  17. Bunton K, Weismer G. The relationship between perception and acoustics for a high-low vowel contrast produced by speakers with dysarthria. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2001;44:1215-28. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2001/095)
  18. Turner GS, Tjaden K, Weismer G. The influence of speaking rate on vowel space and speech intelligibility for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Speech Hear Res 1995;38:1001-13. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3805.1001
  19. Monsen RB. Normal and reduced phonological space: the productions of English vowels by deaf adolescents. J Phonetics 1976;4:189-98.
  20. de Bruijn MJ, ten Bosch L, Kuik DJ, Quene′H, Langendijk JA, Leemans CR, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM. Objective acousticphonetic speech analysis in patients treated for oral or oropharyngeal cancer. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2009;61:180-7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000219953
  21. Liu HM, Tsao FM, Kuhl PK. The effect of reduced vowel working space on speech intelligibility in Mandarin-speaking young adults with cerebral palsy. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;117:3879-89. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1898623
  22. Weismer G, Laures JS, Jeng JY, Kent RD, Kent JF. Effect of speaking rate manipulations on acoustic and perceptual aspects of the dysarthria in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2000;52:201-19. https://doi.org/10.1159/000021536
  23. Umino S, Masuda G, Ono S, Fujita K. Speech intelligibility following maxillectomy with and without a prosthesis: an analysis of 54 cases. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:153-8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00238.x
  24. Rieger JM, Wolfaardt JF, Jha N, Seikaly H. Maxillary obturators: the relationship between patient satisfaction and speech outcome. Head Neck 2003;25:895-903. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.10299
  25. Bohle G 3rd, Rieger J, Huryn J, Verbel D, Hwang F, Zlotolow I.Efficacy of speech aid prostheses for acquired defects of the soft palate and velopharyngeal inadequacy-clinical assessments and cephalometric analysis: a Memorial Sloan-Kettering Study. Head Neck 2005;27:195-207. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.10360
  26. Yoshida H, Michi K, Ohsawa T. Prosthetic treatment for speech disorders due to surgically acquired maxillary defects. J Oral Rehabil 1990;17:565-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1990.tb01427.x
  27. Picheny MA, Durlach NI, Braida LD. Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. II: Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. J Speech Hear Res 1986;29:434-46.
  28. Moon SJ, Lindblom B. Interaction between duration, contact and speaking style in English stressed vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 1994;96:40-55. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.410492
  29. Pyo HY, Sim HS, Song YK, Yoon YS, Lee EK, Lim SE, Hah HR, Choi HS. The acoustic study on the voices of Korean normal adults. Speech Sciences 2002;9:179-92.
  30. Liu H, Ng ML. Formant characteristics of vowels produced by Mandarin esophageal speakers. J Voice 2009;23:255-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2007.09.002

Cited by

  1. How Does Speaking Clearly Influence Acoustic Measures? A Speech Clarity Study Using Long-term Average Speech Spectra in Korean Language vol.5, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3342/ceo.2012.5.2.68
  2. Impairment of Vowel Articulation as a Possible Marker of Disease Progression in Parkinson's Disease vol.7, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032132
  3. Are there sex effects for speech intelligibility in American English? Examining the influence of talker, listener, and methodology pp.1943-393X, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1635-3
  4. The Effects of a Choral Singing Intervention on Speech Characteristics in Individuals With Parkinson’s Disease: An Exploratory Study pp.1538-4837, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740118783040
  5. Multidimensional Approach to the Development of a Mandarin Chinese–Oriented Sound Test vol.59, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-15-0026
  6. Masculine Men Articulate Less Clearly vol.24, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-013-9183-y
  7. Verbal disaster warnings and perceived intelligibility, reliability, and urgency: The effects of voice gender, fundamental frequency, and speaking rate vol.39, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1250/ast.39.56
  8. Mandarin tone perception in multiple-talker babbles and speech-shaped noise vol.147, pp.4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001002
  9. Examining vocal attractiveness through articulatory working space vol.150, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0005730
  10. Distinctive prosodic features of people with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis study vol.11, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02487-6