Voice Analysis of Postlingually Deaf Adults Pre- and Postcochlear Implantation

Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Citações na Scopus
36
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2011
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
MOSBY-ELSEVIER
Citação
JOURNAL OF VOICE, v.25, n.6, p.692-699, 2011
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
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
  1. Allegro J, 2010, Cochlear Implants Int, V11, P100, DOI 10.1002/cii.417
  2. Kempster GB, 2009, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V18, P124, DOI 10.1044/1058-0360(2008/08-0017)
  3. Evans MK, 2007, J VOICE, V21, P669, DOI 10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.07.005
  4. Fletcher SG, 1999, AM J SPEECH-LANG PAT, V8, P241
  5. BLAND JM, 1995, LANCET, V346, P1085, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)91748-9
  6. WALDSTEIN RS, 1990, J ACOUST SOC AM, V88, P2099, DOI 10.1121/1.400107
  7. ASHA, 2002, CONS AUD PERC EV VOI
  8. BALL V, 1990, British Journal of Audiology, V24, P393, DOI 10.3109/03005369009076580
  9. Behlau M., 2004, REV SOC BRAS FONOAUD, V9, P187
  10. Behlau MS, 1985, ACTA AWHO, V4, P5
  11. Bento RF, 2004, BRAZ J OTORHINOLAR, V70, P632
  12. BLAND JM, 1986, LANCET, V1, P307
  13. BONASSI P, 1998, ACTA AWHO, V17, P77
  14. BOONE D, 1994, VOICE VOICE THERAPY, P244
  15. CAMARGO Z, 2003, P 6 INT SEM SPEECH P, V1, P31
  16. Campisi P, 2005, LARYNGOSCOPE, V115, P1046, DOI 10.1097/01.MLG.0000163343.10549.4C
  17. FORNER LL, 1977, J SPEECH HEAR RES, V20, P373
  18. Hamzavi J, 2000, WIEN KLIN WOCHENSCHR, V112, P515
  19. HINDERINK JB, 1995, LARYNGOSCOPE, V105, P618, DOI 10.1288/00005537-199506000-00011
  20. Hocevar-Boltezar I, 2008, WIEN KLIN WOCHENSCHR, V120, P228, DOI 10.1007/s00508-008-0944-2
  21. Hocevar-Boltezar I, 2005, INT J PEDIATR OTORHI, V69, P1635, DOI 10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.03.045
  22. Hocevar-Boltezar I, 2006, OTOL NEUROTOL, V27, P499, DOI 10.1097/00129492-200606000-00011
  23. ILER KK, 1983, OTOLARYNGOL CLIN N A, V16, P281
  24. Kishon-Rabin L, 1999, J ACOUST SOC AM, V106, P2843, DOI 10.1121/1.428109
  25. LANE H, 1991, J ACOUST SOC AM, V89, P859, DOI 10.1121/1.1894647
  26. LEDER SB, 1990, LARYNGOSCOPE, V100, P395
  27. Lejska M, 2004, J VOICE, V18, P209, DOI 10.1016/j.jvoice.2003.08.002
  28. LILY HPN, 2008, ENT-EAR NOSE THROAT, V87, P138
  29. Monini S, 1997, AM J OTOL, V18, P719
  30. MONSEN RB, 1979, J ACOUST SOC AM, V66, P1680, DOI 10.1121/1.383640
  31. Naufel de Felippe AC, 2006, BRAZ J OTORHINOLAR, V72, P659
  32. Poissant SF, 2006, INT J PEDIATR OTORHI, V70, P1195, DOI 10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.12.008
  33. Schenk BS, 2003, ORL J OTO-RHINO-LARY, V65, P184, DOI 10.1159/000072257
  34. Szyfter W, 1996, Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord), V117, P225
  35. Teles VC, 2008, ARQ INT OTORRINOLARI, V12, P523
  36. Tobey EA, 2003, EAR HEARING, V24, p36S, DOI 10.1097/01.AUD.0000051688.48224.A6