Effects of hearing loss on vocal fold vibrations: an electroglottographic analysis

Abstract

 

Abstract. Pre-lingually hearing impaired persons have abnormal pattern of vocal fold vibration and electroglottography has been used to qualitatively describe these anomalies. However quantitative parameterization using the contact quotient and contact index lacks in literature and necessitates the present study. Three groups of moderately severe, severe and profound pre-lingual hearing impaired children were subjected to Electroglottographic analysis by vowel prolongation and the derived contact quotient and contact index data were compared with that of a control group. Results demonstrated statistically significant deviancies of contact quotient and contact index with increasing hearing loss. It was concluded that improper acoustic feedback in hearing impaired leads to a vibratory cycle with a longer than normal and more symmetrical closed phase leading to a breathy, creaky, falsetto voice with little adduction, which increases with increasing hearing loss. The study highlighted the importance of contact quotient and contact index in both evaluative and therapeutic domains.

 

Key words: Electroglottography, hearing loss, contact quotient, contact index

 

 

 

Keywords

• Electroglottography, hearing loss, contact quotient, contact index

References

1. Larson CR. Brain mechanisms involved in the control of vocalization. J Voice 1988; 2: 301-311.
2. Timcke R, von Leden H, Moore P. Laryngeal Vibrations: Measurements of the Glottic Wave. Part I. The Normal Vibratory Cycle. Arch Oto 1958; 68: 1-19.
3. Childers DG, Krishnamurthy AK. A critical review of electroglottography. Reviews in Biomedical Engineering 1985; 12: 131-161.
4. Kitzing P. Clinical Applications of Electroglottography. J Voice 1990; 4: 3238-3249.
5. Hirano M. Structure and vibratory behaviours of the vocal folds. In M.Sawashima & F.S. Cooper (Eds.), Dynamics aspects of speech production.Tokyo,Japan:University of Tokyo Press 1977; pp.13-20.
6. Titze IR, Talkin DT. A theoretical study of the effects of various laryngeal configurations on the acoustics of phonation. J Acous Society America 1979; 66: 60-74.
7. Yamanaka J. Usefulness of electroglottogram(EGG) and photoglottogram (PGG) for the analysis or vocal fold vibration- a high speech digital imaging study. Nippon Jiibinkoka Gakki Kaiko 2000; 103: 905-915.
8. Childers DG, Bae KS. Detection of laryngeal function using speech and electroglottographic data. IEEE Trans Biomedical Engineering 1992; 39: 19- 25.

9. Orlikoff RF. Assessment of the Dynamics of Vocal Fold Contact From the Electroglottogram: Data From Normal Male Subjects. J Speech Hear Res. 1991; 34: 1066-1072.
10. Herbst C. Evaluation of Various Methods to Calculate the EGG Contact Quotient. Diploma Thesis. Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan Department of Speech, Music and Hearing. S-100 44 Stockholm 2004.
11. Mahshie J, Oster A. Electroglottograph and glottal air flow measurements for deaf and normal-hearing speakers. Speech Transmission Laboratory Quarterly Progress and Status Report 1991; 2-3: 19- 27.
12. Manjula P. Electroglottography in the Hearing Impaired. Unpublished master dissertation, University of Mysore, Mysore 1987.
13. Baer T, Lofqvist A, McGarr NS. Laryngeal vibrations: a comparison between high speech filming and glottographic technique. J Acous Society America 1983; 73: 1304-1308.
14. Cheyne HA, Nuss RC, Hillman RE. Electroglottography in the Pediatric Population. Arch Oto Head Neck Sur 1999; 125: 1105-1108.
15. Chen Y, Robb MP, Gilbert HR. Electroglottographic evaluation of gender and vowel effects during modal and vocal fry phonation. J Speech Hear Res 2002; 45: 821-629.
16. Robb MP, Simmons JO. ‘‘Gender comparisons of children’s vocal fold contact behavior’’. J Acous Society America 1990; 88: 1318-1322.
17. Perkell J, Lane H, Svirsky M, et al. Speech of cochlear implant patients: A longitudinal study of vowel production. J Acous Society America 1992; 91: 2961-2978.
18. Svirsky M, Lane H, Perkell JS, et al. Effects of short–term auditory deprivation on speech production in adult cochlear implant users. J Acous Society America 1992; 92: 1284-1300.
19. Waldstein RS. Effects of postlingual deafness on speech production: Implications for the role of auditory feedback. J Acous Society America 1990; 88: 2099-2114.
20. Wirz SL, Anthony J. The Use of Voiscope in Improving the Speech of Profoundly Deaf Children. International J Lang Comm Dis 1979; 14: 137-151.
21. Higgins MB, Carney AE, Schulte L. Physiological Assessment of Speech and Voice Production of Adults with Hearing Loss. J Speech Hear Res 1994; 37: 510-521.
22. Higgins MB, McCleary EA, Ide-Helvie DL, et al. Speech and voice physiology of children who are hard of hearing. Ear Hear 2005; 26: 546-558.
23. Gordon CM, Laufer MR. Physiology of puberty. In Emans, SJH.,Goldstein, DP., Laufer, MR., (eds) Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology (8th ed) (pp120-135) Lippincot, Williams and Wilkins Philadelphia 2005.
24. Rothenberg M. Some relations between glottal air flow and vocal fold contact area. ASHA Reports 1988; 11: 88-96.
25. Forner LL, Hixon TJ. Respiratory Kinematics in Profoundly Hearing-Impaired speakers. J Speech Hear Res 1977; 20: 373-408.
26. Lane H, Perkell J, Svirsky, M, et al. Changes in speech breathing following cochlear implant in postlingually deafened adults. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34: 526-533.
27. Metz DE, Whitehead RL, Whitehead BH. Mechanics of vocal fold vibration and laryngeal articulatory gestures produced by hearing-impaired speakers. J Speech Hear Res 1984; 27: 62-69.
28. Arends N, Povel D, Van Os E. et al. Predicting voice quality of deaf speakers on the basis of glottal characteristics. J Speech Hear Res 1990; 33: 116- 122.
29. Fourcin AJ. Normal and pathological speech: phonetic, acoustic and laryngographic aspects. In Singh W., Soutar D. (eds.), Functional surgery of the larynx and pharynx. Butterworth Heinemann, London 1993.
30. Hasagawa A, Mashie J, Herbert E, et al. Real-time extraction of vocal quality parameters from electroglottographic signal.Paper Presentation,107th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Norfolk,VA 1984.
31. Wilson DK. Voice Problems of Children. 3rd Edn. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins 1987.
32. Stevens KN. Physics of laryngeal behavior and larynx modes. Phonetica 1977; 34: 264-279.
33. Fourcin AJ. Laryngographic examination of vocal fold vibration. In B. Wyke (Ed.), Ventilatory and phonatory control systems London: Oxford University Press 1974; pp. 315-333.
34. Heinrich N, Roubeau B, Castellengo M. On the use of electroglottography for characterisation of the laryngeal mechanisms. Proceedings of the Stockholm Music Acoustics Conference, August 6- 9, (SMAC 03), Stockholm, Sweden 2003.
35. Lecluse F, Brocaar M. ‘‘Quantitative measurements in the electroglottogram’’ 17th International Congress of Logopedics and Phoniatrics 1977.
36. Miller DG, Schutte HK. Physical definition of the "flageolet register". J Voice 1993; 7: 206-212.
37. Wirz S. The voice of the deaf. In M. Fawcus (Ed.) Voice disorders and Their Management(2nd ed.).San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc 1992.
38. Ferguson JB, Bernstein LE, Goldstein MH. J Rehab Res Develop 1998; 25: 63-68.