Voice Analysis of Postlingually Deaf Adults Pre- and Postcochlear Implantation
Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Citações na Scopus
37
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2011
Editora
MOSBY-ELSEVIER
Indexadores
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Autores
MENEZES, Marcia H. Moreira
Autor de Grupo de pesquisa
Editores
Coordenadores
Organizadores
Citação
JOURNAL OF VOICE, v.25, n.6, p.692-699, 2011
Resumo
Objectives. To ascertain whether cochlear implantation (Cl), without specific vocal rehabilitation, is associated with changes in perceptual and acoustic vocal parameters in adults with severe to profound postlingual deafness. Hypothesis. Merely restoring auditory feedback could allow the individual to make necessary adjustments in vocal pattern. Study Design. Prospective and longitudinal. Methods. The experimental group composed of 40 postlingually deaf adults (20 males and 20 females) with no previous laryngeal or voice disorders. Participants' voices were recorded before CI and 6-9 months after Cl. To check for chance modifications between two evaluations, a control group of 12 postlingually deaf adults, six male and six female, without CI was also evaluated. All sessions composed of the recording of read sentences from Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice and sustained vowel /a/. Auditory and acoustic analyses were then conducted. Results. We found a statistically significant reduction in overall severity, strain, loudness, and instability in auditory analysis. In vocal acoustic analysis, we found statistically significant reduction fundamental frequency (F0) values (in male participants) and F0 variability (in both genders). The control group showed no statistically significant changes in most vocal parameters assessed, apart from pitch and F0 (in female participants only). On comparing the interval of variation of results between the experimental and control groups, we found no statistically significant difference in vocal parameters between Cl recipients and nonrecipients, with the exception of F0 variability in male participants. Conclusions. The patients in our sample showed changes in overall severity, strain, loudness, and instability values, and reductions in F0 and its variability. On comparing the variation of results between the groups, we were able to prove in our study that implant recipients postlingually deaf adults (experimental group), without specific vocal rehabilitation, differed from nonrecipients (control group) in loudness and F0 variability sustained vowel /a/ in male participants.
Palavras-chave
Voice, Evaluation, Auditory perception, Cochlear implant
Referências
- Allegro J, 2010, Cochlear Implants Int, V11, P100, DOI 10.1002/cii.417
- Kempster GB, 2009, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V18, P124, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2008/08-0017)
- Evans MK, 2007, J VOICE, V21, P669, DOI 10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.07.005
- Fletcher SG, 1999, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V8, P241
- BLAND JM, 1995, LANCET, V346, P1085, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)91748-9
- WALDSTEIN RS, 1990, J ACOUST SOC AM, V88, P2099, DOI 10.1121/1.400107
- ASHA, 2002, CONS AUD PERC EV VOI
- BALL V, 1990, British Journal of Audiology, V24, P393, DOI 10.3109/03005369009076580
- Behlau M., 2004, REV SOC BRAS FONOAUD, V9, P187
- Behlau MS, 1985, ACTA AWHO, V4, P5
- Bento RF, 2004, BRAZ J OTORHINOLAR, V70, P632
- BLAND JM, 1986, LANCET, V1, P307
- BONASSI P, 1998, ACTA AWHO, V17, P77
- BOONE D, 1994, VOICE VOICE THERAPY, P244
- CAMARGO Z, 2003, P 6 INT SEM SPEECH P, V1, P31
- Campisi P, 2005, LARYNGOSCOPE, V115, P1046, DOI 10.1097/01.MLG.0000163343.10549.4C
- FORNER LL, 1977, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V20, P373
- Hamzavi J, 2000, WIEN KLIN WOCHENSCHR, V112, P515
- HINDERINK JB, 1995, LARYNGOSCOPE, V105, P618, DOI 10.1288/00005537-199506000-00011
- Hocevar-Boltezar I, 2008, WIEN KLIN WOCHENSCHR, V120, P228, DOI 10.1007/s00508-008-0944-2
- Hocevar-Boltezar I, 2005, INT J PEDIATR OTORHI, V69, P1635, DOI 10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.03.045
- Hocevar-Boltezar I, 2006, OTOL NEUROTOL, V27, P499, DOI 10.1097/00129492-200606000-00011
- ILER KK, 1983, OTOLARYNGOL CLIN N A, V16, P281
- Kishon-Rabin L, 1999, J ACOUST SOC AM, V106, P2843, DOI 10.1121/1.428109
- LANE H, 1991, J ACOUST SOC AM, V89, P859, DOI 10.1121/1.1894647
- LEDER SB, 1990, LARYNGOSCOPE, V100, P395
- Lejska M, 2004, J VOICE, V18, P209, DOI 10.1016/j.jvoice.2003.08.002
- LILY HPN, 2008, ENT-EAR NOSE THROAT, V87, P138
- Monini S, 1997, AM J OTOL, V18, P719
- MONSEN RB, 1979, J ACOUST SOC AM, V66, P1680, DOI 10.1121/1.383640
- Naufel de Felippe AC, 2006, BRAZ J OTORHINOLAR, V72, P659
- Poissant SF, 2006, INT J PEDIATR OTORHI, V70, P1195, DOI 10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.12.008
- Schenk BS, 2003, ORL J OTO-RHINO-LARY, V65, P184, DOI 10.1159/000072257
- Szyfter W, 1996, Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord), V117, P225
- Teles VC, 2008, ARQ INT OTORRINOLARI, V12, P523
- Tobey EA, 2003, EAR HEARING, V24, p36S, DOI 10.1097/01.AUD.0000051688.48224.A6