PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to analyze the influence of palatal height on Korean vowels and speech intelligibility in Korean adults and to produce baseline data for future prosthodontic treatment.
Material and methods
Forty one healthy Korean men and women who had no problem in pronunciation, hearing, and communication and had no history of airway disease participated in this study. Subjects were classified into H, M, and L groups after clinical determination of palatal height with study casts. Seven Korean vowels were used as sample vowels and subjects’ clear speech sounds were recorded using Multispeech software program on computer. The F1 and the F2 of 3 groups were produced and they were compared. In addition, the vowel working spaces of 3 groups by /a/, /i/, and /u/ corner vowels were obtained and their areas were compared. Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whiteny U test were used as statistical methods and P < .05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
There were no significant differences in formant frequencies among 3 groups except for the F2 formant frequency between H and L group (P = .003). In the analysis of vowel working space areas of 3 groups, the vowel working spaces of 3 groups were similar in shape and no significant differences of their areas were found.
REFERENCES
1.Kent RA., Read C. The acoustic analysis of speech. 2nd ed.Thomson Learning;2002. p. 1–60.
2.Ladefoged P. A course in phonetics. 5th ed.Wadsworth: Cengage learning;2006. p. 211–36.
3.Marunick MT., Menaldi CJ. Maxillary dental arch form related to voice classification: a pilot study. J Voice. 2000. 14:82–91.
4.Zarb GA., Bolender CL., Eckert SE., Fenton AH., Jacob RF., Mericske-Stern R. Prosthodontic treatment for edentulous patients: complete dentures and implant-supported prostheses. 12. St. Louis: Mosby;2003. p. 379–88.
5.Moon SJ. A fundamental phonetic investigation of Korean monophthongs. J Phonetic Soc Korea. 2007. 62:1–17.
6.Yang B. A study on vowel formant variation by vocal tract modification. Korea J Speech Sci. 1998. 3:83–92.
7.Kharbanda OP., Shaw WC., Worthington H. Palate height: another indicator of surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate? Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002. 39:308–11.
8.Ito S., Noguchi M., Suda Y., Yamaguchi A., Kohama G., Yamamoto E. Speech evaluation and dental arch shape following pushback palatoplasty in cleft palate patients: Supraperiosteal flap technique versus mucoperiosteal flap technique. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2006. 34:135–43.
9.Lee SJ., Kim TW., Suhr CH. Study of recognition of malocclusion and orthodontic treatments. Korean J Orthod. 1994. 24:193–8.
10.McAuliffe MJ., Robb MP., Murdoch BE. Acoustic and perceptual analysis of speech adaptation to an artificial palate. Clin Linguist Phon. 2007. 21:885–94.
11.Park YC., Lee SH., Shon DS. An acousticanalysis of pronunciation in children with Angle' s class II div. 1 malocclusion. Korean J Pedo. 1997. 24:95–111.
12.Laitinen J., Ranta R., Pulkkinen J., Haapanen ML. The association between dental arch dimensions and occurrence of Finnish dental consonant misarticulations in cleft lip/palate children. Acta Odontol Scand. 1998. 56:308–12.
13.Majid AA., Weinberg B., Chalian VA. Speech intelligibility following prosthetic obturation of surgically acquired maxillary defects. J Prosthet Dent. 1974. 32:87–96.
14.Matsui Y., Shirota T., Yamashita Y., Ohno K. Analyses of speech intelligibility in patients after glossectomy and reconstruction with fasciocutaneous/myocutaneous flaps. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009. 38:339–45.
15.Raphael LJ., Borden GJ., Harris KS. Speech science primer. 5th ed.Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & wilkins;2007. p. 105–30.
16.Peterson G., Barney H. Control methods used in a study of the vowels. J Acoust Soc Am. 1952. 24:175–84.
17.Turner GS., Tjaden K., Weismer G. The influence of speaking rate of vowel working space and speech intelligibility for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Speech Hear Res. 1995. 38:1001–13.
18.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. 117:3879–89.
19.Bradlow AR., Torretta GM., Posoni DB. Intelligibility of normal speech. I. Global and fine-rained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics. Speech Commun. 1996. 20:255–72.
20.Krause JC., Braida LD. Acoustic properties of naturally produced clear speech at normal speaking rates. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004. 115:362–78.
21.Tobey EA., Lincks J. Acoustic analyses of speech changes after maxillectomy and prosthodontic management. J Prosthet Dent. 1989. 62:449–55.
22.Hasegawa-Johnson M., Pizza S., Alwan A., Cha JS., Haker K. Vowel category dependence of the relationship between palate height, tongue height, and oral area. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003. 46:738–53.
23.Hiki S. Influence of palate shape on lingual articulation. Speech Commun. 1986. 5:141–58.
24.Ladefoged P., Maddieson I. The Sounds of the world' s Languages. Blackwell;1996. p. 9–46.
25.Knott VB., Johnson R. Height and shape of the palate in girls: a longitudinal study. Arch Oral Biol. 1970. 15:849–60.
26.Ito S., Noguchi M., Suda Y., Yamaguchi A., Kohama G., Yamamoto E. Speech evaluation and dental arch shape following pushback palatoplasty in cleft palate patients: Supraperiosteal flap technique versus mucoperiosteal flap technique. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2006. 34:135–43.
27.Mars M., Asher-McDade C., Brattstro ¨m V., Dahl E., McWilliam J., M∅lsted K., Plint DA., Prahl-Andersen B., Semb G., Shaw WC, et al. A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: Part 3. Dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992. 29:405–8.
28.Marunick MT., Menaldi CJ. Maxillary dental arch form related to voice classification: a pilot study. J Voice. 2000. 14:82–91.
Fig. 1.
Vowel working spaces of H, M, and L groups. The apices of the triangle represent the coordinates of the mean values of first two formant frequencies of the vowels /ㅏ/, /ㅣ/, and /ㅜ/ produced by the H goup (thick solid line), M group (dotted line), and L group (thin solid line).
Table I.
Mean palatal width (mm), mean palatal depth (mm), and mean palatal rat values
| Group | Palatal width | Palatal depth | Palatal ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H | Mean | 49.93 | 18.91 | 0.38 |
| (n = 20) | SD | 2.13 | 1.66 | 0.03 |
| M | Mean | 50.00 | 17.20 | 0.35 |
| (n = 14) | SD | 3.13 | 1.78 | 0.04 |
| L | Mean | 52.35 | 17.05 | 0.33 |
| (n = 7) | SD | 2.92 | 1.08 | 0.03 |
Table II.
Mean F1 values (Hz) and standard deviations for the test vowels
Table III.
Mean F2 values (Hz) and standard deviations for the test vowels
Table IV.
P values among H, M and L groups
| Vowels | /ㅏ/ | /ㅔ/ | /ㅣ/ | /ㅗ/ | /ㅜ/ | /ㅡ/ | /ㅓ/ | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P value | F1 0.223 | F2 0.969 | F1 0.704 | F2 0.053 | F1 0.287 | F2 0.044∗ | F1 0.78 | F2 0.217 | F1 0.54 | F2 0.275 | F1 0.643 | F2 0.76 | F1 0.195 | F2 0.551 |
XML Download