J Adv Prosthodont.  2010 Sep;2(3):71-76. 10.4047/jap.2010.2.3.71.

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

• Kwon HB

• KMID: 2118109
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2010.2.3.71

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. MATERIAL 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.

Keyword

Vowel; Formant; Vowel working space; Speech intelligibility

MeSH Terms

Acoustics
Female
Humans
Male
Phonetics
Prosthodontics
Speech Intelligibility
Voice

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 The vowel working spaces of men (dotted line) and women (solid line). Data points represent the coordinate of mean F1 and mean F2 of the vowels /a/, /i/, and /u/.

Reference

1. Plank DM, Weinberg B, Chalian VA. Evaluation of speech following prosthetic obturation of surgically acquired maxillary defects. J Prosthet Dent. 1981. 45:626–638.

2. Yoshida H, Michi K, Ohsawa T. Prosthetic treatment of speech disorders due to surgically acquired maxillary defects. J Oral Rehabil. 1990. 17:565–571.

3. Beumer J, Curtis TA, Marunick MT. Maxillofacial rehabilitation: Prosthodontic and surgical considerations. 1996. St. Louis: Elsevier;225–284.

4. Kipfmueller LJ, Lang BR. Presurgical maxillary prosthesis: an analysis of speech intelligibility. J Prosthet Dent. 1972. 28:620–625.

5. Majid AA, Weinberg B, Chalian VA. Speech intelligibility following prosthetic obturation of surgically acquired maxillary defects. J Prosthet Dent. 1974. 32:87–96.

6. Rogers CL, DeMasi TM, Krause JC. Conversational and clear speech intelligibility of /bVd/ syllables produced by native and non-native English speakers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010. 128:410–423.

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. 79:310–316.

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. 25:153–158.

9. Nygaard LC, Sommers MS, Posoni DB. Effects of stimulus variability on perception and representation of speaking words in memory. Percept Psychophys. 1995. 57:989–1001.

10. Bradlow AR, Torretta GM, Pisoni DB. Intelligibility of normal speech I: Global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics. Speech Commun. 1997. 20:255–272.

11. Klatt D, Klatt L. Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990. 87:820–857.

12. Hanson HM. Glottal characteristics of female speakers- Acoustic, physiological, and perceptual correlates. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997. 101:466–481.

13. Vorperian HK, Kent RD. Vowel acoustic space development in children: a synthesis of acoustic and anatomic data. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007. 50:1510–1545.

14. Byrd D. Relations of sex and dialect to reduction. Speech Commun. 1994. 15:39–54.

15. Bond ZS, Moore TJ. A note on the acoustic phonetic characteristics of inadvertently clear speech. Speech Commun. 1994. 14:325–337.

16. Peterson G, Barney H. Control methods used in a study of the vowels. J Acoust Soc Am. 1952. 24:175–184.

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. 44:1215–1228.

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. 38:1001–1013.

19. Monsen RB. Normal and reduced phonological space: the productions of English vowels by deaf adolescents. J Phon. 1976. 4:189–198.

20. de Bruijn MJ, ten Bosch L, Kuik DJ, Quené H, Langendijk JA, Leemans CR, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM. Objective acoustic-phonetic speech analysis in patients treated for oral or oropharyngeal cancer. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2009. 61:180–187.

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. 117:3879–3889.

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. 52:201–219.

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. 25:153–158.

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.

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.

26. 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. 29:434–446.

27. Moon SJ, Lindblom B. Interaction between duration, contact and speaking style in English stressed vowels. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994. 96:40–55.

28. 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 Sci. 2002. 9:179–192.

29. Liu H, Ng ML. Formant characteristics of vowels produced by Mandarin esophageal speakers. J Voice. 2009. 23:255–260.