Cepstral peak prominence of blom-singer ‘non-indwelling low pressure’ and ‘classic indwelling’ voice prosthesis in male tracheo-oesophageal speakers

Sheela Shekaraiah, Venkataraja U. Aithal, Bellur Rajashekhar, Vasudeva Guddattu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: Tracheo-oesophageal (TE) speech is one of the most commonly used alaryngeal voice restoration options for individuals who have undergone a total laryngectomy. Cepstral Peak Prominence (CPP) implies the overall voice quality objectively. Aim: To compare the CPP between Blom-Singer non-indwelling low pressure and classic indwelling voice prosthesis across vowel phonation /a/ and text-reading tasks in male TE speakers. Materials and Methods: The study included 10 male TE speakers in the age range of 45-75 years. Dr. Hillenbrand’s ‘Speech Tool’ software was used to measure CPP. Two types of speech prosthesis used were Blom-Singer non-indwelling low pressure and classic indwelling voice prosthesis (both of 16 French diameter) and the tasks vowel phonation and text-reading were considered. The SPSS software, version 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for data analysis. The parametric paired t-test was applied to compare CPP between two types of voice prostheses across speech tasks. Results: There was no significant difference between Blom-Singer non-indwelling low pressure voice prosthesis and classic indwelling voice prosthesis for CPP during vowel phonation/a/ task {t(9)=0.74, p=0.516} and text-reading task {t(9)=0.72, p=0.947)}. Similarly, there was no significant difference for CPP between speech tasks for Blom-Singer non-indwelling low pressure voice prosthesis {t(9)=1.11, p=0.347)} and Blom-Singer classic indwelling voice prosthesis {t(9)=0.51, p=0.644)}. Conclusion: In TE speakers, CPP is not influenced by prosthesis type in terms of mode of fitting, prosthesis design and valve opening pressure across speech tasks, implying no difference in the objective measure of overall voice quality.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)MC05-MC08
JournalJournal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
Volume12
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-06-2018

Fingerprint

Artificial Larynges
Singing
Pressure
Phonation
Voice Quality
Reading
Prostheses and Implants
Esophageal Speech
Software
Prosthesis Design
Laryngectomy

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Clinical Biochemistry

Cite this

@article{47be92e064eb4fd69eadfbe907f8fe38,
title = "Cepstral peak prominence of blom-singer ‘non-indwelling low pressure’ and ‘classic indwelling’ voice prosthesis in male tracheo-oesophageal speakers",
abstract = "Introduction: Tracheo-oesophageal (TE) speech is one of the most commonly used alaryngeal voice restoration options for individuals who have undergone a total laryngectomy. Cepstral Peak Prominence (CPP) implies the overall voice quality objectively. Aim: To compare the CPP between Blom-Singer non-indwelling low pressure and classic indwelling voice prosthesis across vowel phonation /a/ and text-reading tasks in male TE speakers. Materials and Methods: The study included 10 male TE speakers in the age range of 45-75 years. Dr. Hillenbrand’s ‘Speech Tool’ software was used to measure CPP. Two types of speech prosthesis used were Blom-Singer non-indwelling low pressure and classic indwelling voice prosthesis (both of 16 French diameter) and the tasks vowel phonation and text-reading were considered. The SPSS software, version 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for data analysis. The parametric paired t-test was applied to compare CPP between two types of voice prostheses across speech tasks. Results: There was no significant difference between Blom-Singer non-indwelling low pressure voice prosthesis and classic indwelling voice prosthesis for CPP during vowel phonation/a/ task {t(9)=0.74, p=0.516} and text-reading task {t(9)=0.72, p=0.947)}. Similarly, there was no significant difference for CPP between speech tasks for Blom-Singer non-indwelling low pressure voice prosthesis {t(9)=1.11, p=0.347)} and Blom-Singer classic indwelling voice prosthesis {t(9)=0.51, p=0.644)}. Conclusion: In TE speakers, CPP is not influenced by prosthesis type in terms of mode of fitting, prosthesis design and valve opening pressure across speech tasks, implying no difference in the objective measure of overall voice quality.",
author = "Sheela Shekaraiah and Aithal, {Venkataraja U.} and Bellur Rajashekhar and Vasudeva Guddattu",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.7860/JCDR/2018/36961.11741",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "MC05--MC08",
journal = "Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research",
issn = "2249-782X",
publisher = "Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cepstral peak prominence of blom-singer ‘non-indwelling low pressure’ and ‘classic indwelling’ voice prosthesis in male tracheo-oesophageal speakers

AU - Shekaraiah, Sheela

AU - Aithal, Venkataraja U.

AU - Rajashekhar, Bellur

AU - Guddattu, Vasudeva

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Introduction: Tracheo-oesophageal (TE) speech is one of the most commonly used alaryngeal voice restoration options for individuals who have undergone a total laryngectomy. Cepstral Peak Prominence (CPP) implies the overall voice quality objectively. Aim: To compare the CPP between Blom-Singer non-indwelling low pressure and classic indwelling voice prosthesis across vowel phonation /a/ and text-reading tasks in male TE speakers. Materials and Methods: The study included 10 male TE speakers in the age range of 45-75 years. Dr. Hillenbrand’s ‘Speech Tool’ software was used to measure CPP. Two types of speech prosthesis used were Blom-Singer non-indwelling low pressure and classic indwelling voice prosthesis (both of 16 French diameter) and the tasks vowel phonation and text-reading were considered. The SPSS software, version 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for data analysis. The parametric paired t-test was applied to compare CPP between two types of voice prostheses across speech tasks. Results: There was no significant difference between Blom-Singer non-indwelling low pressure voice prosthesis and classic indwelling voice prosthesis for CPP during vowel phonation/a/ task {t(9)=0.74, p=0.516} and text-reading task {t(9)=0.72, p=0.947)}. Similarly, there was no significant difference for CPP between speech tasks for Blom-Singer non-indwelling low pressure voice prosthesis {t(9)=1.11, p=0.347)} and Blom-Singer classic indwelling voice prosthesis {t(9)=0.51, p=0.644)}. Conclusion: In TE speakers, CPP is not influenced by prosthesis type in terms of mode of fitting, prosthesis design and valve opening pressure across speech tasks, implying no difference in the objective measure of overall voice quality.

AB - Introduction: Tracheo-oesophageal (TE) speech is one of the most commonly used alaryngeal voice restoration options for individuals who have undergone a total laryngectomy. Cepstral Peak Prominence (CPP) implies the overall voice quality objectively. Aim: To compare the CPP between Blom-Singer non-indwelling low pressure and classic indwelling voice prosthesis across vowel phonation /a/ and text-reading tasks in male TE speakers. Materials and Methods: The study included 10 male TE speakers in the age range of 45-75 years. Dr. Hillenbrand’s ‘Speech Tool’ software was used to measure CPP. Two types of speech prosthesis used were Blom-Singer non-indwelling low pressure and classic indwelling voice prosthesis (both of 16 French diameter) and the tasks vowel phonation and text-reading were considered. The SPSS software, version 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for data analysis. The parametric paired t-test was applied to compare CPP between two types of voice prostheses across speech tasks. Results: There was no significant difference between Blom-Singer non-indwelling low pressure voice prosthesis and classic indwelling voice prosthesis for CPP during vowel phonation/a/ task {t(9)=0.74, p=0.516} and text-reading task {t(9)=0.72, p=0.947)}. Similarly, there was no significant difference for CPP between speech tasks for Blom-Singer non-indwelling low pressure voice prosthesis {t(9)=1.11, p=0.347)} and Blom-Singer classic indwelling voice prosthesis {t(9)=0.51, p=0.644)}. Conclusion: In TE speakers, CPP is not influenced by prosthesis type in terms of mode of fitting, prosthesis design and valve opening pressure across speech tasks, implying no difference in the objective measure of overall voice quality.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063184473&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063184473&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7860/JCDR/2018/36961.11741

DO - 10.7860/JCDR/2018/36961.11741

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85063184473

VL - 12

SP - MC05-MC08

JO - Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research

JF - Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research

SN - 2249-782X

IS - 6

ER -