REFERENCES - apjor.comapjor.com/files/1464420238.docx · Web viewIt was of interest to perceive...

EFFECT OF LINGUISTIC EXPERIENCE ON NASALANCE MEASURE IN

NATIVE AND NON NATIVE SPEAKERS OF BANGLA AND HINDI LANGUAGE

Himanshu Kumar1, Dr. Ashok Kumar Sinha2, Indranil Chatterjee3, Bibhu Prasad

Hota4, Shatakshi5

1(Lecturer (Speech & Hearing), AYJNIHH, ERC, Kolkata, India)

2(Director, AYJNIHH, Mumbai, India)



5(Post graduate trainee in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, AYJNIHH, ERC,

Kolkata, India)

ABSTRACT

The present study was taken up with the purpose of investigating the norms for mean

Nasalance measured by Zoo, Rainbow and Nasal sentences. It was of interest to perceive the

effect of linguistic experience and gender differences in the mean Nasalance score. Sixty

native speakers of Hindi and Bangla within the age range of 18 years to 25 years

participated in this study. The mean Nasalance scores of the native speakers of Bangla were

19.38, 34.84 and 60.21. The mean native speakers of Hindi were 16.33, 33.04 and 60.31

respectively. In rainbow and nasal sentences no significant differences (p>0.05) was noted.

The effect of the dialectal variance amongst the language was most evident in high Nasalance

value of Zoo passage. The vernacular data’s obtained will help in formulating management

protocols of resonance disorder.

Keywords-Nasometer, Bangla language, Nasalance score, Zoo, Rainbow and Nasal

sentences

INTRODUCTION

Speech consists of various sounds which are produced by modulating the glottal air stream

with in the vocal tracts (Stevens and House, 1995; 1961, Fant, 1960). Speech sounds could be

categorized into nasal and oral sounds. For oral phonemes the vocal tract can be viewed as a

cavity containing the oral and pharyngeal cavities. Comparatively for the production of nasal

phonemes, oral and pharyngeal cavity is augmented by an additional nasal cavity. Nasal

cavity is coupled to the oral cavities by the velopharyngeal (VP) port. The VP port is variable

in size and is regulated by the ‘velopharyngeal mechanism. The proficiency in regulating the

coupling of the nasal cavity to the oral and pharyngeal cavities is critical to the production of

normal speech. A speaker should be capable of precisely controlling the timing of the

alternate coupling and decoupling of the cavities. The velopharyngeal mechanism plays a

consequential role in this precision of movements. One of the most common consequences of

a malfunctioning/inadequate velopharyngeal mechanism is nasality, Movement of the velum

is essential for making the distinction between oral and nasal sounds in speech .The velum

and lateral pharyngeal walls control the degree of “Coupling” between the nasal and oral

cavities. A series of studies was conducted to examine whether variable VP closure patterns

have a functional origin, or results from basic anatomical differences (Finkeistein, Lerner,

Ophir, Nachmani, Hauben & Zohar, 1993; Finkelstein, ShapiroFeinberg, Talmi,

NachmaniDeRowe, & Ophir, 1995; Finkelstein, Talmi, Nachmani, Haubmen&Zohair,

1992).The most recent study in the series conducted by Finkeistein et a!. (1995) involved CT

scans and flexible nasoendoscopic examinations of the VP valve. The researchers studied 28

men and 32 women with no personal or family histories of cleft lip or palate and no history or

maxillary, oral or pharyngeal surgery. The classification system for VP closure patterns as

described by Croft et al. (1981) was used in this study with one exception. An additional

rating labeled “coronal with marked medial movement of the lateral pharyngeal walls” was

included to account for the continuum between the coronal and circular closure pattern. The

researchers made transverse and anteroposterior measures of soft tissue features where the

VP isthmus was fully visible as well as measurements of bony landmarks of the skull base.

Measurements were made while the velum was at rest and during speech tasks; however, the

specific speech tasks used were not described. India is country of many languages spoken.

Linguistic experience of the native speaker does affect the verbal output when the second

language is learnt and spoken. Native language has its impact on pronunciations, speech

discrimination. It is interesting to know if the linguistic experience will play any significant

role and also affect the nasalance when an individual speaks nonnative language. Mayo and

his colleagues (1996) found no significant racial difference in the Zoo passage nasalance

scores of 40 African Americans (17; SD = 5.2) and 40 European Americans(18; SD = 4.2)

Moreover, extant data concerning nasalance scores among native speakers of Spanish

(Anderson, 1996) suggest that their nasalance scores on a non nasal Spanish passage (22; SD

= 8.7; N = 40) are similar to those reported for European American speakers of English.

The aim of the study was to establish the norms for nasalance as measured by Zoo, Rainbow

and Nasal Sentences for the native speaker of Bengali language, Hindi language and to

examine the difference in mean nasalance scores for native speakers of Bengali with

linguistic experience of Hindi as third language and vice versa and to examine the effect of

gender differences on the mean nasalance measures as measured by Zoo, Rainbow and nasal

passages

It was hypothesized that there will be different Mean Nasalance as measured from Zoo, and

Rainbow passage and Nasal sentences for the native speaker of Bengali, Hindi in English

norms, significant difference between male and female of native speaker of Bengali and

Hindi language and there will be significant difference of the nasalance measure of the native

Bengali speaker with minimum five years of exposure to Hindi language and vice versa.

METHODOLOGY

Subject

Native speakers of Bengali and Hindi language were selected for the study and placed in

Group I and Group II respectively. Native speakers of Bengali who had minimum of five

years of exposure to the Hindi language constituted Group III. Group IV formed of subjects

of native speaker of Hindi language with minimum of five years of exposure to the Bengali

language. All Groups consisted of 30 subjects each with equal number of male and female

subjects. Age ranges of subjects in each group were 18 years to 25 years. No subjects

reported sinus infections or sinus allergies at the time of testing. Clinical assessment at the

time of testing revealed that no subjects exhibited any speech and language or hearing

problems including hyper nasality or articulation errors in their conversational speech. Oral

mechanism evaluations determined that each subject presented with an intact palate and

normal velopharyngeal function during phonation.

Instrumentation and test environment

Nasometer II Model 6400 (software version 2.6) of Kay Elemetrics Corporation was

connected to an HCL compatible desktop computer (HCL Pentium 4) and was used in this

study for measurement of mean nasalence. Nasometer was housed in a quiet room which was

partially acoustically treated in the clinic of Ali Yavar Jung National Institute for the hearing

handicapped, Eastern Regional Center, Kolkata.

Tests

Standardized passages for the measurement of nasalance were used. Zoo Passage as given by

Fletcher, (1972) which excludes nasal Consonants in English language was used . Rainbow

passage as developed by Fairbanks, (1960) containing 11.5% nasal consonants in English

language was used in this study. A set of five Nasal Sentences were taken from the manual of

Nasometer II which contained 35 % of nasal phonemes. This was more than three times as

many as would be expected in standard American English sentences (Flecther, 1978).

Procedure

The Nasometer II Model 6400 was calibrated using the standard calibration procedure

provided by the manufacture prior to the data collection. At the beginning of each data

collection session, the nasometer was calibrated in accordance with manufacturer instruction.

The nasometer head piece was then positioned such that the oral and nasal microphones were

at equivalent distances from the mouth and nose. The subject was seated in front of a

computer monitor and asked to read the Zoo passage, Rainbow passage and Nasal Sentences

with normal loudness and at a normal rate of speech. All the subjects were given instruction

prior to the test. Instruction was ‘A text will appear on the screen. Read the text which

appears on the monitor screen exactly as it appears. Do not repeat the text or add anything

which does not appear on the monitor screen.’ Subjects were asked to lower the loudness in

case they were reading too loud which lights over loudspeaker. All subjects were given three

trials. Average mean nasalance scores were computed for statistical analysis. It took about 15

minutes to test each subject.

RESULTS

Subjects who were native speaker of Bengali, Hindi and were well verse with English

formed two groups, Group I and II respectively having 30 subjects (15 Male and 15 Female)

in each group. Group I[I and IV consisted of native speakers of Bengali and Hindi who were

well versed with English language with additional exposure of minimum five years for Hindi

and Bengali language respectively. Both groups had 30 subjects in each with equal number of

male and female subjects. The age ranges of all the subjects were between 18 to 25 years. In

following section the results obtained along with the statistical analyses are being reported.

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSES ALONG WITH GROUP COMPARISONS

Mean nasalance for Zoo passage, Rainbow passage and Nasal sentence

All subjects were asked to read Zoo passage and scores of mean nasalence were computed.

Mean and Standard deviation of mean nasalance for the Zoo passage were computed and are

reported in Table 1.

Table 1.Mean and standard deviation of mean nasalance (%) score of Group I, IL III and IV

as measured on Zoo passage, Rainbow passage and Nasal sentence.

Passage Group I Group II Group III Group IV

ZOO

PASSAGE

Mean 21.03 18.16 17.73 14.50

SD 8.07 7.89 3.91 3.91

RAINBOW

PASSAGE

Mean 36.76 34.89 32.93 31.2

SD 8.15 5.00 6.24 5.76

NASAL

PASSAGE

Mean 61.16 61.79 59.26 58.83

SD 5.45 5.24 6.36 5.45

Figure 1.

Mean and standard deviation of mean nasalance of Bengali, Hindi and English speaker as

measured with Zoo passage.

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3

Bengali Hindi English

Mea

n Na

sala

nce

in %

Figure 2.


measured with Rainbow passage.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3


Mea

n Na

sala

nce

in %

Figure 3.


measured with Nasal sentences.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3


Mea

n Na

sala

nce

in %

Gender differences of mean nasalance

For measung the gender difference means and standard deviation of mean nasalence Scores

of Bengali and Hindi speakers irrespective of third language exposure were computed and

reported in Table 2.

Table: 2 Mean and standard deviation of mean nasalance score for Male and female Bengali

and Hindi speakers for Zoo passage, Rainbow passage and Nasal sentence

Passage Bengali

speaker

(male)

Bengali speaker

(female)

Hindi speaker

(male)

Hindi speaker

(female)

ZOO

PASSAGE

Mean 18.56 20.02 15.5 17.16

SD 7.36 8.79 3.66 5.97

RAINBOW

PASSAGE

Mean 33.59 35.69 32.56 33.53

SD 5.88 8.77 6.03 5.32

NASAL

PASSAGE

Mean 60.66 59.76 60.23 59.4

SD 5.88 8.77 5.39 5.56

Computation of Z and t test

One of the important objectives of the study was to compare the norms as given by for the

English speakers with obtained mean nasalence of Bengali and Hindi speakers for Zoo,

Rainbow passages and Nasal Sentences. As the Standard error of means were not known

(individual mean nasalence were not given in Nasometer II Mannual of kayElemetrics) for

the mean of nasalence given as the normative data for Standard American English in the

Manual of Nasometer II, decision was made to compute the Z test for the means of the

nasalence scores for the Bengali, Hindi and English speakers. Table 3 gives the computed

values for Zoo, Rainbow passages and Nasal Sentences for Bengali speakers compared with

English speakers.

Table: 3

Z values for Bengali speakers with English speakers

Z

valuesZ values (norms)

Zoo passage -4.72 ±1.96

Rainbow passage -1.96 ±1.96

Nasal passage -0.39 ± 1.96

Similarly the Z test was done Zoo; Rainbow and Nasal sentences for the Hindi speakers

compared with English Speakers are reported in Table 4.

Table: 4 Z values for Hindi speakers with English speakers

Z

valuesZ values (norms)

Zoo passage -3.99 ±1.96

Rainbow passage -1.07 ±1.96

Nasal passage -0.47 ± 1.96

In order to examine the effect of third lanage exposure on the mean nasalence Scores of Zoo,

Rainbow and Nasal Sentences for Group I and III and Group II and IV t test was computed

and the summa of equality of mean nasalence for Group I and III and Group II and IV are

shown in Table 5.

Table: 5 Summary of equality of mean nasalance of Bengali and Hindi speakers and

additional Hindi and Bengali language exposure for Zoo, Rainbow and Nasal sentences.

t-test for Equality of means

“T” value Df Sig.(2-tailed)

Zoo passage

Equal variance assumed 2.011 58 .049

Equal variance not

assumed

2.011 42.434 .051

Rainbow passage


Equal variance not

assumed

1.118 57.633 .268

Nasal passage

Equal variance assumed .283 58 .778

Equal variance not

assumed

.283 56.672 .778

To examine the significant differences of the mean of the mean nasalance of the native

speakers of Bengali and Hindi speaker t test was computed and shown in the Table 6

Table: 6 Summary of equality, of mean nasalance of Bengali and Hindi speakers for Zoo,

Rainbow and Nasal sentences



Zoo passage


Equal variance not

assumed

1.62550.188 .111

Rainbow passage


Equal variance not

assumed

1.068 48.132 .291

Nasal passage

Equal variance assumed -.458 58 .648

Equal variance not

assumed

-.458 57.916 .648

For examining the gender difference of the mean nasalence of the native speakers of Bengali

and Hindi speakers along with the group with minimum of five years of exposure to Hindi or

Bengali language, t test was computed and the summary of equality of mean nasalence has

been reported in Table 7 and 8 for native speakers of Hindi and Bengali speakers.

Table: 7 Summary of equality of mean nasalence of gender differences Hindi speakers for

Zoo, Rainbow and Nasal sentences



Zoo passage

Equal variance assumed -3.527 28 .001

Equal variance not

assumed

-3.52725.988 .002

Rainbow passage

Equal variance assumed -.613 28 .545

Equal variance not

assumed

-.613 27.923 .545

Nasal passage


Equal variance not

assumed

1.569 27.999 .128

Table: 8 Summary of equality of mean nasalance of gender differences Bengali speakers for

Zoo, Rainbow and Nasal sentence



Zoo passage


Equal variance not

assumed

-3.05420.065 .006

Rainbow passage


Equal variance not

assumed

-1.89222.090 .072

Nasal passage


Equal variance not

assumed

1.569 27.999 .128

DISCUSSION

Over the past 20 years, a great deal of attention has been paid to developing instrumental

techniques for assessing velopharyngeal function. The primary purpose of this work has been

to provide speech and language pathologists with supplemental verification of their clinical

impressions. One instrument that has achieved considerable popularity among clinicians is

the nasometer.

This study was conducted to evaluate if the mean nasalance scores for the different stimuli

(Zoo passage, Rainbow passage and Nasal Sentences) vary for the Bengali and Hindi

speakers as compared with the normative data for the English speakers as measured by the

Nasometer II of Kay Elemetrics Corporation. An additional attempt was made to compare if

the language exposure for the native speaker of Bengali and Hindi made any differences on

the mean nasalence scores as measured for Zoo, Rainbow and Nasal Sentences. Gender

differences in measures of mean nasalence were also studied. Results of the statistical

analyses were presented previously.

Mean Nasalance of Native speakers of Bengali

Every oral Bengali vowel has its nasal counterpart which is a separate phoneme. The main

difference between nasal and oral vowels is due to the position of the soft palate. During the

articulation of nasal vowels, the soft palate is lowered down, so that the air stream is free to

pass not only through the buccal cavity but also through the nasal cavities. Due to the

coupling of the nasal and buccal cavities, the first formant of all nasal vowels is slightly

reduced in intensity. Generally speaking, the nasal vowels are in the same articulatory

position as the corresponding oral vowels (Ferguson and Chowdhury, 1960).

All Bengali oral vowels are slightly nasalized when clustering with nasal consonant m, n, ŋ.

This nasalization may sometimes be even more prominent than the nasal quality of nasal

vowel phonemes, but still they will be treated as oral vowels according to the phonemic

contrast in the word itself. Nasal vowels do not occur in conjunction with nasal consonants.

The mean nasalence scores of the native speakers of the Bengali (Group I and Group II) taken

together as obtained for Zoo, Rainbow and nasal sentences were 19.38 as shown in figure 1,

34.84 for Rainbow passage( Figure 2) and 60.21 for Nasal sentences( Figure 3). As native

speakers of Bengali were reading English passages containing no nasal sounds, 11.5% of

nasal sounds and 35.5 of nasal sound in Zoo, Rainbow and nasal Sentences, clearly showed

more nasalence in the Zoo passage compared to the normative data of the English passage (Z

value -4.72). The possible reason for the more nasalence in the Zoo passage observed may be

due to the linguistic differences in English and Bengali language. In Bengali even the oral

vowels have its nasal pair (Koustic and Das, 1972, Ferguson and Chowdhury, 1960).There

are seven oral vowel phonemes in the Bengali language and each of the seven oral vowels has

its opposite nasal phoneme. The frequency of Bengali phonemes has been estimated to be

46.7 1%. No significant difference was observed on the Z test when the mean nasalence of

Rainbow passage and Nasals Sentences were computed (Z value -1.96 and -0.39) in

comparison to English normative data. This may be due to as Rainbow passage and Nasal

Sentences are required for test for denaslization and nasal deblock. It may be inferred from

the finding of this study that only normative data for mean nasalance for the Zoo passage

need to changed as compared to the English normative data.

Mean Nasalance of Native speakers of Hindi

The mean nasalance of native speakers of Hindi were 16.33, 33.04 and 60.31 as obtained for

Zoo, Rainbow and Nasal Sentences. Similar trend was seen as in the case of native speakers

of Bengali language, when the Z test was computed. The mean nasalance for the Zoo passage

only were showing difference (Z value -3.99). Linguistic patterns in Hindi are most similar to

Bengali language as Hindi language also has nasal forms of all oral vowels along with nasal

consonants (Kostic, Mitter and Rastogi, 1975). For the Nasometer, the issue of determining

cutoff nasalance scores for clinical populations has been approached from both a statistical

and clinical perspective. Initially, the original developers of the Nasometer established

normal distributions for a group of 117 children from Alabama, U.S.A., who spoke a

Southern dialect of American English (Fletcher et al., 1989),and some preliminary adult data

on a very small number of adults. These data were used in the early versions of the

Nasometer manual (Nasometer Model 6200-2 Manual, Kay Elemetrics, 1989) with the

recommendation that clinical levels of abnormal nasal resonance be determined by assuming

a limit of 2 SDs beyond the mean. In light of research that followed the commercial

introduction of the device, later versions of the manual (e.g., Nasometer Model 6200-3

Instruction Manual, Kay Elemetrics, 1994) contain much more cautious statements about the

interpretation of nasalance scores, stating that “there are no rules engraved in stone governing

when a patient’s nasometric assessment should be considered abnormal”. The manual refers

the user to the literature with particular reference to Daiston et al. (1991a, 1993). These

studies have used a clinical rather than statistical approach to the determination of cutoff

scores. Perceptual ratings on a numerical scale were predetermined to be clinically significant

at a particular value. Then, nasalance scores for the same subjects were measured

independently of the perceptual judgments. Cutoff scores for nasalance were set as those that

give the best overall correct prediction of the presence or absence of abnormal nasality.

Those studies that have used this method to determine optimal cutoff values for the detection

of hyper nasality (Dalston et al., 1991a; Hardin et al., 1992; Watterson et al., 1993) differ in

their findings. Daiston et al. (l991a) obtained an optimal efficiency of 93% (with sensitivity

of 0.89) using a cutoff score of 32 for detection of hyper nasality using the Zoo Passage. In

contrast, Hardin et al. (1992) found that a score of 26 for the same passage gave an optimal

efficiency of 82% (with sensitivity of 0.85). Watterson et al. (1993) also obtained a cutoff

score of 26, but their optimal efficiency was only 64% (with sensitivity of 0.71). Differences

in these scores are difficult to interpret because there were methodological differences in the

studies. However, the extent of the differences may indicate that there is need to control for

dialect, age, and gender before meaningful across-study comparisons can be made.

Therefore in order to have normative data for the native speakers of either Bengali or Hindi

speakers comparison must be made by the mean nasalance obtained for the Zoo passage as

19.38 and 16.33 instead of the English normative data of 11.5.

Cross Linguistic Comparison

Subjects belonging to the Group II and Group IV had minimum of five years of exposure to

Hindi and Bengali language respectively. The t test for Equality of means of the Zoo passage,

Rainbow passage and Nasal Sentences did not show any significant differences as can be

seen in the Table 5, 6, 7 and 8 . Perhaps the minimum of five year exposure for the native

speakers of either Bengali and Hindi speakers to Hindi or Bengali who were already exposed

to English became as third language. The linguistic structures as especially with the nature of

vowel nasalization were similar in Bengali and Hindi language. Because of this there was no

effect of linguistic experience for the native speakers of Bengali and Hindi speakers. As this

study does not find any significant difference in the mean nasalence for the native speakers, it

may be inferred that normative data for the English language may be used at least for

Rainbow and Nasal Sentences.

Nasalance Scores: Gender Differences

Nasal cross-sectional area and Fo was evaluated using modification of theoretical hydraulic

principle and visipitch respectively. Seaver et al (1991) study found significant differences in

nasal cross- section areas and modal pitch between male and female subjects. As has been the

case in previous studies (Seaver et al., 1991; Litzaw and Daiston, 1992), the sex differences

observed in the Zoo passage data have been very small, despite the fact that the difference did

reach statistical significance in the occluded condition. Of potentially more clinical

significance is the fact that there did not appear to be any indication of a sex difference in the

acoustic transfer properties of the palate. However, there were few men in this study, and the

mean age difference between sexes was fairly large (6.5 years). Therefore, a larger-scale

examination of male and female differences would be necessary to substantiate this premise.

However, findings of this study did not support studies indicating higher nasalence scores for

the female as can be seen in the Table 7 and 8 for both native speakers of Bengali and Hindi

as the t test for Equality of means of the Zoo passage, Rainbow passage and Nasal Sentences

did not show any significant differences (t value of .005,.069 and .534) except for Zoo

passage( t value .005 and .006). The findings of this study was in confirmation with studies

reported in literature (Seaver et al, 1991; Leeper et al, 1992; Litzaw and Daiston, 1992; Mayo

et al., 1996; van Doom and Purcell, 1998).No significant differences in gender for the mean

nasalance for the Rainbow passage and the Nasal Sentences may be attributive to more

number of vowels and consonants are nasalized in Bengali and Hindi languages.

Summary & conclusion

The present study was taken up with the purpose of investigating the norms for mean

nasalance as measured by Zoo, Rainbow and Nasal sentences for the native speaker of the

Bengali and the Hindi languages within age ranges 18 years to 25 years and finds if there was

any effect of linguistic experience and gender difference in the mean nasalance score. Native

speakers of Bengali and the Hindi language were selected for the study and placed in four

groups, consisted of 30 subjects in each group with each number of male and female subjects.

Two groups had subjects who were native speaker of either Bengali or Hindi. Other two

groups consisted of subjects who were native speakers and had minimum five years of

exposure to either Hindi or Bengali language. All subjects read English as second language.

Subjects were reported to not having any speech language and hearing disorders. Nasometer

II Model 6400 with compatible desktop computer was used to measure mean nasalance

scores for Zoo, Rainbow passages and Nasal sentences. The mean nasalence scores of the

native speakers of the Bengali (Group I and Group II) taken together as obtained for Zoo,

Rainbow and nasal sentences were 19.38 , 34.84 for Rainbow passage and 60.21 for Nasal

sentences. As native speakers of Bengali were reading English passages containing no nasal

sounds, 11.5% of nasal sounds and 35.5 of nasal sound in Zoo, Rainbow and nasal Sentences,

clearly showed more nasalence in the Zoo passage compared to the normative data of the

English passage. The mean nasalance of native speakers of Hindi were 16.33, 33.04 and

60.31 as obtained for Zoo, Rainbow and Nasal Sentences. Cross linguistic comparison of

mean nasalance of Bengali and Hindi language did not revealed an significant difference and

the effect of linguistic experience of their language exposure did not revealed any significant

difference. No significant differences in gender for the mean nasalance for the Rainbow

passage and Nasal sentences were noticed except for Zoo passage mean nasalance score.

Application

Finding of the current study will help speech language pathology to evaluate the nasalance of

the native speaker of Bengali and Hindi by using English passage for those who are well

verse with English. Certain passage may be made in Bengali and Hindi and the norms may be

made as per the finding of this study.

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. (1996). Nasometric Values for Normal Spanish-Speaking Females: A

Preliminary Report.The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 33(4), pp.333-336.

Brook, P. (1989). Kay Elemetrics. Nasometer Model 62 00—2 Instruction Manual. Kay Elemetrics.

CROFT, C., SHPRINTZEN, R. and RAKOFF, S. (1981). PATTERNS OF

VELOPHARYNGEAL VALVING IN NORMAL AND CLEFT PALATE

SUBJECTS. The Laryngoscope, 91(2), pp.265???271.

Daiston, R., Warren, D. and Daiston, E. (1991). the use of nasometry as a diagnostic to for

identifying patient with velopharyngealimpainnent. Cleft Palate J, 28, pp.184-198.

Dalston, R., Neiman, G. and Gonzalez-Landa, G. (1993). Nasometric Sensitivity and

Specificity: A Cross-Dialect and Cross-Culture Study. The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial

Journal, 30(3), pp.285-291.

Fairbanks, G. (1960). Voice and Articulation Drill book. New York: Harper &Row.

Fant, G. (1960). Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. Cleft Palate Journal, 18(27), pp.1-

279.

Ferguson, C. and Chowdhury, M. (1960). The Phonemes of Bengali. Language, 36(1), p.22.

Finkeistein, Y., Ophir, M., Nachmani, D., Hauben, M. and Zohar, Y. (1993). Nasopharyngeal

profile and velopharyngeal valve mechanism. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 92,

pp.603-614.

Finkelstein, Y., Talmi, Y., Nachmani, A., Hauben, D. and Zohar, Y. (1992). On the

Variability of Velopharyngeal Valve Anatomy and Function. Plastic and Reconstructive

Surgery, 89(4), pp.631-639.

Finkelstejn, F., ShapiroFejflberg, M., Talmi, Y., Nachmani, Y., DeRowe, A. and Ophir, D.

(1995). Axial configuration of the velopharyngeal valve and its valving

mechanisml. Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Journal, 32, pp.299-305.

Fletcher, S. (2016). Diagnosing Speech Disorders from Cleft Palate. New York: Grune and

Stratton.

Fletcher, S., Adams, L., MeCutcheon, M. and Brown, L. (1989). Cleft palate speech assessment through oral nasal acoustic measures ed. Communicative Disorders Related to Cleft Lip and Palate.. Bzoch KR, Boston, pp.246—257.

Hardin, M., Demark, D., Morris, H. and Payne, M. (1992). Correspondence between

Nasalance Scores and Listener Judgments of Hypernasality and Hyponasality. The Cleft

Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 29(4), pp.346-351.

Kostic, D., Mitter, A. and Rastogi, K. (1975). .A Short Outline of Hindi Phonetics. Kolkata

ISI, pp.24-35.

Kostic, D. and Das, R. (1972). A Short Outline of Bangali Phonetics. Kolkata ISI, pp.36-4]

Leeper, H., Rochet, A. and Mackay, I. (1992). Characteristics of nasalance in Canadian speakers of English and French. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. Banff, Alberta, Canada, pp. 49—52.

Litzaw, L. and Dalston, R. (1992). The effect of gender upon nasalance scores among normal

adult speakers. Journal of Communication Disorders, 25(1), pp.55-64.

Mayo, R., Floyd, L., Warren, D., Dalston, R. and Mayo, C. (1996). Nasalance and Nasal Area

Values: Cross-Racial Study. The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 33(2), pp.143-149.

Park, L. (1994). Kay Elemetrics Corporation.Instruction manual of the nasometer Model 6200—3, IBMPCVersion. KayElemetrics.

Seaver, E., Dalston, R., Leeper, H. and Adams, L. (1991). A Study of Nasometric Values for

Normal Nasal Resonance. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 34(4),

p.715.

van Doorn, J. and Purcell, A. (1998). Nasalance Levels in the Speech of Normal Australian

Children.The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 35(4), pp.287-292.

Watterson, T., McFarlane, S. and Wright, D. (1993). The relationship between nasalance and

nasality in children with cleft palate. Journal of Communication Disorders, 26(1), pp.13-

28

REFERENCES - apjor.comapjor.com/files/1464420238.docx · Web viewIt was of interest to perceive...

Documents

Transcript of REFERENCES - apjor.comapjor.com/files/1464420238.docx · Web viewIt was of interest to perceive...