Pindzola R H, Moffet B
Department of Communication Disorders, Auburn University, AL 36849.
J Commun Disord. 1988 Dec;21(6):459-67. doi: 10.1016/0021-9924(88)90016-0.
Fifty-six tape-recorded readings of the "Rainbow Passage" were played to 29 naive listeners for judgments regarding acceptability of artificial larynx speech. Both intraoral and neck-type devices were used, with comparisons among brands of particular interest. The Cooper-Rand, orally adapted Servox, AT&T 5 C, and the neck Servox were used in eliciting speech samples from 14 male esophageal speakers. Listeners rated acceptability using a seven-point equal-appearing interval scale. All devices were rated similar in fluency acceptability, inflection, and overall communicative effectiveness. Speaking rates were judged more acceptable with the oral Servox and least acceptable with the Cooper-Rand. Pitch/quality was more acceptable with intraoral devices than with neck devices, with the oral Servox rated highest. Clinical implications regarding the perceptual findings are discussed, with information about specific brands provided for patient counseling.
向29名未接触过人工喉语音的听众播放了56段《彩虹篇章》的录音，以判断人工喉语音的可接受性。使用了口内型和颈部型两种装置，特别关注不同品牌之间的比较。使用库珀-兰德（Cooper-Rand）、经口腔适配的塞尔沃克斯（Servox）、美国电话电报公司5C型（AT&T 5C）以及颈部塞尔沃克斯装置，从14名男性食管切除术后患者那里获取语音样本。听众使用七点等距量表对可接受性进行评分。所有装置在流畅性可接受性、语调变化和整体沟通效果方面的评分相似。经判断，口内塞尔沃克斯装置的说话速度更易被接受，而库珀-兰德装置的说话速度最不易被接受。口内装置的音高/音质比颈部装置更易被接受，其中口内塞尔沃克斯装置的评分最高。讨论了这些感知结果的临床意义，并为患者咨询提供了特定品牌的相关信息。
