Williams S E, Watson J B
Laryngoscope. 1987 Jun;97(6):737-9.
Twelve judges, with no previous exposure to laryngectomees, rated the speaking proficiencies of 33 laryngectomees divided into the following groups: esophageal speakers (n = 12); electrolarynx speakers (n = 11); and tracheoesophageal puncture speakers (n = 10). In addition, the speech of ten normal subjects was rated. Specific speaking parameters examined included voice quality, pitch, loudness, intelligibility, rate of speaking, visual presentation during speech, extraneous speaking noise, and overall communicative effectiveness. Multiple discriminant analyses performed on the ratings made by each judge revealed significant differences in ratings for various speaking parameters in the four subject groups. Results generally support the stance that tracheoesophageal speech is perceived as superior to communication with either an electrolarynx or with traditional esophageal speech, even though it is not viewed as comparable to normal voice.
12名此前未接触过喉切除患者的评委，对33名喉切除患者的言语能力进行了评分，这些患者被分为以下几组：食管发音者（n = 12）；电子喉发音者（n = 11）；以及气管食管穿刺发音者（n = 10）。此外，对10名正常受试者的言语也进行了评分。所检查的具体言语参数包括音质、音高、响度、可懂度、语速、言语过程中的视觉呈现、额外言语噪音以及整体沟通效果。对每位评委给出的评分进行的多重判别分析显示，四个受试者组在各种言语参数的评分上存在显著差异。结果总体上支持这样一种观点，即气管食管发音被认为优于使用电子喉或传统食管发音进行的交流，尽管它被认为无法与正常嗓音相媲美。
