Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Automatisierung des Postlaryngektomie-Telefontests

Automated postlaryngectomy telephone test

  • Originalien
  • Published:
HNO Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

In dieser Studie wird ein objektives Verfahren für die Verständlichkeitsmessung mit dem Postlaryngektomie-Telefontest (PLTT) mittels automatischer Spracherkennungstechnik beschrieben.

Material und Methoden

31 Sprecher mit tracheoösophagealer Ersatzstimme (25 Männer und 6 Frauen; 63,4±8,7 Jahre) wurden zunächst von 11 naiven Hörern bewertet. Der vom Spracherkennungssystem ermittelte Verständlichkeitsgrad wird als Prozentsatz korrekt verstandener Wörter einer Wortkette, der Wortakkuratheit bzw. -korrektheit, angegeben und mit den subjektiv ermittelten PLTT-Werten verglichen.

Ergebnisse

Die durchschnittliche PLTT-Gesamtverständlichkeit der 11 naiven Hörer liegt bei 47%, die automatisch ermittelte Wortakkuratheit und Wortkorrektheit liegen deutlich niedriger (etwa 0% bzw. etwa 15%). Die Korrelation zwischen menschlicher und maschineller Bewertung liegt jedoch z. T. über 0,9.

Fazit

Für den Gesamtverständlichkeitswert des PLTT kann mit Hilfe der automatischen Spracherkennung objektiv und effizient ein äquivalentes Maß berechnet werden.

Abstract

Objective

In this study, an objective version of the postlaryngectomy telephone test (PLTT) for measuring speech intelligibility based on automatic speech recognition is presented.

Methods

Thirty-one patients with tracheoesophageal substitute voice (25 men and six women, 63.4±8.7 years) were evaluated by 11 naïve listeners. The automatic measurement of speech intelligibility was expressed by means of word accuracy and word recognition rates, or the percentage of correctly recognized words from a word sequence. These automatic measures were compared with the subjectively obtained PLTT values.

Results

The average PLTT intelligibility of the 11 naïve listeners was 47%; the automatically obtained word accuracy and word recognition rates were much lower (approximately 0% and 15%, respectively). The correlation between subjective and automatic evaluation, however, reached more than 0.9 in some of the examined cases.

Conclusion

Automatic speech recognition provides an efficient, objective measure that is equivalent to the overall PLTT intelligibility value.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Baker JK (1975) The DRAGON System – an overview. IEEE Trans Acoust Speech Signal Process 23: 24–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bellandese MH, Lerman JW, Gilbert HR (2001) An acoustic analysis of excellent female esophageal, tracheoesophageal, and laryngeal speakers. J Speech Lang Hear Res 44: 1315–1320

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown DH, Hilgers FJM, Irish JC, Balm AJM (2003) Postlaryngectomy voice rehabilitation: state of the art at the millennium. World J Surg 27: 824–831

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Devins GM, Stam HJ, Koopmans JP (1994) Psychosocial impact of laryngectomy mediated by perceived stigma and illness intrusiveness. Can J Psychiatry 39: 608–616

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fröhlich M, Michaelis D, Strube HW, Kruse E (2000) Acoustic voice analysis by means of the hoarseness diagram. J Speech Lang Hear Res 43: 706–720

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gallwitz F, Niemann H, Nöth E (1999) Spracherkennung – Stand der Technik, Einsatzmöglichkeiten und Perspektiven. Wirtschaftsinformatik 41: 538–547

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gandour J, Weinberg B (1983) Perception of intonational contrasts in alaryngeal speech. J Speech Hear Res 26: 142–148

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gogh CDL van, Festen JM, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM et al. (2005) Acoustical analysis of tracheoesophageal voice. Speech Commun 47: 160–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Haderlein T, Steidl S, Nöth E et al. (2004) Automatic recognition and evaluation of tracheoesophageal speech. In: Sojka P, Kopeček I, Pala K (eds) Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Text, Speech and Dialogue (TSD 2004). Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 3206, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 331–338

  10. Jelinek F, Bahl LR, Mercer RL (1975) Design of a linguistic statistical decoder for the recognition of continuous speech. IEEE Trans Inf Theory IT-21: 250–256

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lohscheller J (2003) Dynamics of the laryngectomee substitute voice production. Kommunikationsstörungen – Berichte aus Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie, Bd 14. Shaker, Aachen

  12. Moerman M, Pieters G, Martens JP et al. (2004) Objective evaluation of the quality of substitution voices. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 261: 541–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Moran R, Reilly RB, Chazal P de, Lacy PD (2006) Telephony-based voice pathology assessment using automated speech analysis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 53: 468–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Olthoff A, Mrugalla K, Laskawi R et al. (2003) Assessment of irregular voices after total and laser surgical partial laryngectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 129: 994–999

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Picone J, Goudie-Marshall K, Doddington G, Fisher W (1986) Automatic text alignment for speech system evaluation. IEEE Trans Acoust Speech Signal Process 34: 780–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Riedhammer K, Haderlein T, Schuster M et al. (2006) Automatic evaluation of tracheoesophageal telephone speech. In: Erjavec T, Žganec Gros J (eds) Proceedings of the 5th Slovenian and 1st International Conference Language Technologies IS-LTC 2006. Biografika BORI, Ljubljana, pp 17–22

  17. Robbins J, Fisher HB, Blom ED, Singer MI (1984) A Comparative acoustic study of normal, esophageal, and tracheoesophageal speech production. J Speech Hear Disord 49: 202–210

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Schukat-Talamazzini EG, Niemann H, Eckert W et al. (1993) Automatic speech recognition without phonemes. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (Eurospeech). European Speech Communication Association (ESCA), Berlin, pp 129–132

  19. Schuster M, Haderlein T, Nöth E et al. (2006) Intelligibility of laryngectomees‘ substitute speech: automatic speech recognition and subjective rating. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 263: 188–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schuster M, Kummer P, Eysholdt U, Rosanowski F (2003) Quality of life in laryngectomees after prosthetic voice restoration. Folia Phoniatr Logop 55: 211–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schuster M, Nöth E, Haderlein T et al. (2005) Can you understand him? Let’s look at his word accuracy – automatic evaluation of tracheoesophageal speech. Proceedings of ICASSP 2005 – International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Philadelphia, pp 61–64

  22. Schutte HK, Nieboer GJ (2002) Aerodynamics of esophageal voice production with and without a Groningen voice prosthesis. Folia Phoniatr Logop 54: 8–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Searl JP, Carpenter MA (2002) Acoustic cues to the voicing feature in tracheoesophageal speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res 45: 282–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Singer S, Danker H, Bloching M et al. (2007) Stigmatisierungsgefühle nach Kehlkopfentfernung. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 57: 328–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stemmer G (2005) Modeling Variability in Speech Recognition. Studien zur Mustererkennung, Bd 19. Logos, Berlin

  26. Torn M van der, Mahieu HF, Festen JM (2001) Aero-acoustics of silicone rubber lip reeds for alternative voice production in laryngectomees. J Acoust Soc Am 110: 2548–2559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wokurek W, Pützer M (2003) Automated corpus based spectral measurement of voice quality parameters. In: Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS). International Phonetic Association (IPA), Barcelona, pp 2173-2176

  28. Zenner HP (1986) The postlaryngectomy telephone intelligibility test (PLTT). In: Herrmann IF (ed) Speech Restoration via Voice Prosthesis. Springer, Berlin, pp 148–152

  29. Zenner HP, Pfrang H (1986) Ein einfacher Sprachverständlichkeitstest zur Beurteilung der Stimmrehabilitation des Laryngektomierten. Laryngorhinootologie 65: 271–276

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Danksagung

Diese Arbeit wurde von der Deutschen Krebshilfe (Förder-Nr. 106266) gefördert.

Interessenkonflikt

Der Autor PD Dr.-Ing. Elmar Nöth ist Teilhaber der Fa. Sympalog Voice Solutions, Erlangen.

Author information

Author notes

  1. T. Haderlein

    Present address: Lehrstuhl für Mustererkennung, Technische Fakultät der Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Deutschland

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung für Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Bohlenplatz 21, 91054, Erlangen, Deutschland

    T. Haderlein, A. Maier, U. Eysholdt & F. Rosanowski

  2. Lehrstuhl für Mustererkennung, Technische Fakultät der Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Deutschland

    K. Riedhammer & E. Nöth

Authors
  1. T. Haderlein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Riedhammer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Maier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. Nöth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. U. Eysholdt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. F. Rosanowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Haderlein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haderlein, T., Riedhammer, K., Maier, A. et al. Automatisierung des Postlaryngektomie-Telefontests. HNO 57, 51–56 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-008-1698-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-008-1698-x

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation