Significantly higher nasalance values where identified during use of pharyngeal fricative.

Objective: This study had the objectives of establishing a data bank of speech recordings representative of use of pharyngeal fricative compensatory articulation (PF); presence and absence of hypernasality; identifying nasalance values (mean and standard deviation for the samples studied; and comparing nasalance finding among the different speech samples established. Method: A total of 1680 speech samples were recorded from 19 individuals with cleft lip and palate (CLP), 11 with velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) and 8 without VPD, and from 5 individuals without history of CLP. The participants repeated a series of 14 phrases (13 with high pressure consonants and 1 with a low pressure consonant), while audio and nasometric data was simultaneously recorded. The audio signals captures were edited and rated by 3 experienced judges with 100% agreement. After the ratings the samples were distributed into 4 groups (G): G1included 255 samples rated as representative of presence of hypernasality; G2included 130 samples rated as representative of use of PF and hypernasality; G3included 280 samples rated as representative of normal speech (without PF and without hypernasality) for speakers with history of cleft palate; G4included 175 samples rated as representative of normal speech (without PF and without hypernasality) for speakers without history of cleft palate. Results: The ratings established with agreement by the 3 judges during auditory-perceptual analysis of the recordings responded to objectives this study which proposed to establish samples representative of use of PF and of presence and absence of hypernasality. The samples rated by the judges were distributed into the four groups of interest for calculation of the nasalance scores, The Kruskal-Wallis statistical test was used to test the hypothesis that presence of PF, with or without hypernasality significantly would affect nasalance scores. When significant difference was found Dunn"s test was used to compared data in group pairs. After inferential statistics we observed that a significant difference was found between nasalance scores for groups G1 and G2 (samples representative of speech errors) with groups G3 and G4 (samples representative of normal speech). The difference between the group with hypernasality (G1) and the group with PF (G2) was not significant. Conclusion: The use of PF did not significantly influence nasalance values for the studied sample, refuting the proposed hypothesis.

Purpose: to compare nasalance scores between speech samples with and without pharyngeal fricative and with and without hypernasality. Methods: a total of 840 speech samples was analyzed in this study. The samples were rated by three experienced judges with consensus regarding the aspects of hypernasality and pharyngeal fricative. The ratings were distributed into 4 groups: G1: 255 samples rated as representative of presence of hypernasality; G2: 130 samples rated as representative of use of pharyngeal fricative and hypernasality; G3: 280 samples rated as representative of normal speech for speakers with history of cleft palate; G4: 175 samples rated as representative of normal speech for speakers without history of cleft palate. Satistical analysis involved the Kruskal-Wallis test and when significant difference was found Dunn's test was used to compared pairs of data.Results: the ratings established with agreement between the 3 experienced judges allowed for the identification of the samples representative of use of pharyngeal fricative and hypernasal speech. Nasalance scores were establish for each group revealing a significant difference between groups G1+G2 (representative of speech errors) and groups G3+G4 (representative of normal speech). The difference between the group with hypernasality (G1) and the group with pharyngeal fricative (G2) was not significant. Conclusion: the use of pharyngeal fricative did not significantly influence nasalance values for the studied sample. Keywords: Cleft Palate; Velopharyngeal Insufficiency; Speech; Reproducibility of Tests RESUMO Objetivo: comparar os valores de nasalância em amostras de fala com e sem o uso de fricativa faríngea e, também, com e sem hipernasalidade. Métodos: um total de 840 amostras de fala foi analisado neste estudo. As amostras foram julgadas por três juízas experientes por consenso quanto aos aspectos hipernasalidade e fricativa faríngea. Os julgamentos foram distribuídos em quatro grupos: G1: 255 amostras de fala julgadas como representativas de hipernasalidade; G2: 130 amostras julgadas como representativas do uso de fricativa faríngea e hipernasalidade; G3: 280 amostras julgadas como representativas de fala normal em falantes com história de fissura labiopalatina; G4: 175 amostras julgadas como representativas de fala normal em falantes sem história de fissura labiopalatina. Para análise dos dados foi utilizando o teste Kruskal-Wallis e quando houve diferença estatisticamente significante foi aplicado o teste Dunn's para comparar os grupos aos pares. Resultados: os julgamentos aferidos por consenso pelas três juízas permitiram a identificação de amostras representativas do uso de fricativa faríngea e da presença e ausência de hipernasalidade. Foram estabelecidos valores de nasalância (média e desvio padrão) para cada grupo e observou-se que houve diferença estatisticamente significante entre os grupos com alteração de fala (G1 e G2) e aqueles sem alteração (G3 e G4). A diferença entre o grupo com hipernasalidade (G1) e o grupo com FF (G2...

Objetivo: Estabelecer um banco de amostras de referência constituído por gravações de fala de indivíduos com história de fissura labiopalatina, julgadas, por múltiplos avaliadores, como representativas do uso da oclusiva glotal. Método: Três fonoaudiólogas experientes julgaram 480 frases compostas por sons oclusivos e fricativos, quanto à identificação da oclusiva glotal. As frases foram julgadas individualmente e aquelas que não apresentaram consenso inicial foram novamente julgadas de maneira simultânea pelas mesmas avaliadoras. As amostras julgadas com consenso pelas avaliadoras, com relação à presença ou ausência da oclusiva glotal durante a produção dos sons oclusivos e fricativos, foram selecionadas para estabelecer o banco de amostras de referência. Resultados: Os julgamentos realizados evidenciaram consenso das avaliadoras em 352 amostras. Destas, 120 frases eram representativas da produção adequada para os 12 sons de interesse e 232 eram representativas do uso da oclusiva glotal. Conclusão: Um banco de amostras de referência representativas da oclusiva glotal foi estabelecido a partir do consenso de avaliadores múltiplos. As amostras de referência poderão ser usadas em estudos futuros envolvendo treinamento de avaliadores e formação de fonoaudiólogos.