Bressmann Tim, Klaiman Paula, Fischbach Simone
Graduate Department of Speech-Language Pathology, University of Toronto, ON, Canada.
Clin Linguist Phon. 2006 Apr-May;20(2-3):163-70. doi: 10.1080/02699200500270689.
Nasalance scores from the Nasometer, the NasalView and the OroNasal System were compared. The data was collected from 50 normal participants and 19 hypernasal patients with cleft palate. The Nasometer had the lowest nasalance scores for the non-nasal Zoo Passage and that the OroNasal System had the lowest nasalance scores for the Nasal Sentences. The nasalance distance was largest for the Nasometer and smallest for the OroNasal System. When the calculation was based on nasalance magnitudes, results for sensitivity ranged from 57.9% to 81.8% and results for specificity ranged from 62.0% to 76.0%. When the calculation was based on nasalance distances, results for sensitivity ranged from 84.2% to 100.0% and results for specificity ranged from 82.0% to 100.0%. Results suggest that nasalance scores from the three systems are not interchangeable. Diagnostic efficacy improved when the calculations were based on nasalance distances rather than magnitudes, but further research is warranted to corroborate these findings.
对来自鼻声计、鼻视图和口鼻系统的鼻声度评分进行了比较。数据收集自50名正常参与者和19名腭裂所致高鼻音患者。对于非鼻音的动物声音段落，鼻声计的鼻声度评分最低；对于鼻音句子，口鼻系统的鼻声度评分最低。鼻声计的鼻声度距离最大，口鼻系统的最小。当基于鼻声度大小进行计算时，敏感度结果范围为57.9%至81.8%，特异度结果范围为62.0%至76.0%。当基于鼻声度距离进行计算时，敏感度结果范围为84.2%至100.0%，特异度结果范围为82.0%至100.0%。结果表明，这三个系统的鼻声度评分不可互换。当基于鼻声度距离而非大小进行计算时，诊断效能有所提高，但需要进一步研究来证实这些发现。
