Intraoral air pressure of alaryngeal speakers during a no-air insufflation maneuver

Magnitude and Variability of Oral Pressure in Tracheoesophageal Speech

“…The P o SDs in the present study were consistent with reports of increased P o variability Searl for both ES [28,32,39] and EL speakers [29]. Surgical alterations of the base of the tongue and pharynx with possible negative effects on articulatory behavior have been suggested as one possible reason for the greater variability in P o for ES users [28,39].…”

“…The present study extends the finding beyond bilabial stops to now include lingua-alveolar stops as well as fricatives (labiodental, lingua-alveolar, and palatal). These data from TE speakers, along with previously published results from ES [26,39,40] and EL speakers [29], suggest that laryngectomized speakers using any of the three primary alaryngeal communication modes tend to produce elevated P o relative to nonlaryngectomized individuals.…”

“…TE speakers have also been found to have a high degree of variability (within and across speakers) in transneoglottal airflow relative to laryngeal speakers [7,54]. Gorham et al [39] argued that fluctuations in trans-source flow could be reflected in P o as increased variability.…”

“…Although direct evidence is lacking, increased variability in acoustic variables such as vowel duration [16,24,51], consonant durations [23,24], and first and second formant values [51] could be interpreted as an indication of less stability in TE speech production. Gorham et al [39] offered another possible explanation for the greater P o variability in alaryngeal speech. They suggested that more variable transneoglottal airflow compared to that seen in laryngeal speakers could contribute to increased P o variability in ES speech.…”

“…Surgical alterations of the base of the tongue and pharynx with possible negative effects on articulatory behavior have been suggested as one possible reason for the greater variability in P o for ES users [28,39]. Although direct evidence is lacking, increased variability in acoustic variables such as vowel duration [16,24,51], consonant durations [23,24], and first and second formant values [51] could be interpreted as an indication of less stability in TE speech production.…”