Prosodic boundaries in alaryngeal speech

References

• Beach C. M. The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: evidence for cue trading relations. Journal of Memory and Language 1991; 30: 644–663
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaauw E. The contribution of prosodic boundary markers to the perceptual difference between read and spontaneous speech. Speech Communication 1994; 14: 359–375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boersma P. Accurate short‐term analysis of the fundamental frequency and the harmonics‐to‐noise ratio of a sampled sound. IFA Proceedings 1993; 17: 97–110
   Google Scholar
• Boersma P., Weenink D. Praat: a system for doing phonetics by computer (version 3.7). Report 1998; 132, Institute of Phonetic Sciences, University of Amsterdam available at: http://www.praat.org
   Google Scholar
• Bors E. F. M., Wicherlink W. H., Schutte H. K., Mahieu H. F. Evaluatie Esophagusstem. Logopedie en Foniatrie 1986; 58: 230–234
   Google Scholar
• Cambier‐Langeveld G. M., Nespor M., Van Heuven V. The domain of final lengthening in production and perception in Dutch. ESCA. Eurospeech Proceedings 1997; 931–935
   Google Scholar
• Casper J. K., Colton R. H. Clinical manual for laryngectomy and head and neck cancer rehabilitation. Singular, San Diego, CA 1993
   Google Scholar
• Christensen M. J., Dwyer P. E. Improving alaryngeal speech intelligibility. Journal of Communication Disorders 1990; 23: 445–451
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Pijper J. R., Sanderman A. A. On the perceptual strength of prosodic boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1994; 96((4))2037–2047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Rooij J. J. Speech punctuation. An acoustic and perceptual study of some aspects of speech prosody in Dutch. University of Utrecht, Utrecht 1979, Doctoral Thesis
   Google Scholar
• Gandour J., Weinberg B. Production of speech melody and contrastive stress in oesophageal and tracheoesophageal speech. Journal of Phonetics 1985; 13: 83–85
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandour J., Weinberg B., Petty S. H., Dardarananda R. Tone in Thai alaryngeal speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 1988; 53: 23–29
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gee J. P., Grosjean F. Performance structures: a psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal. Cognitive Psychology 1983; 15: 411–458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gussenhoven C., Rietveld A. C. M. Transcription of Dutch intonation‐courseware. 1992, available at: http://lands.let.kun.nl/todi
   Google Scholar
• Klatt D. H. Vowel lengthening is syntactically determined in a connected discourse. Journal of Phonetics 1975; 3: 129–140
   Google Scholar
• Klatt D. H. Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1976; 59: 1208–1222
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehiste I. Phonetic disambiguation of syntactic ambiguity. Glossa 1973; 7: 107–122
   Google Scholar
• Lehiste I. Signalling of syntactic structure in whispered speech. Folia Linguistica 1983; 17: 239–245
   Google Scholar
• Max L., Steurs W., De Bruyn W. Vocal capacities in oesophageal and tracheoesophageal speakers. Laryngoscope 1996; 106: 93–96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHenry M., Reich A., Minifie F. Acoustical characteristics of intended syllabic stress in excellent oesophageal speakers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1982; 25: 564–573
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miralles J. L., Cervera T. Voice intelligibility in patients who have undergone laryngectomies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1995; 38: 564–571
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moolenaar‐Bijl A. Some data on speech without larynx. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 1951; 3: 20–24
   Google Scholar
• Moolenaar‐Bijl A. The importance of certain consonants in oesophageal voice after laryngectomy. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology 1953; 62: 979–989
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moon J. B., Weinberg B. Aerodynamic and myoelastic contributions to tracheoesophageal voice production. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1987; 30: 387–395
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moulines E., Laroche J. Non‐parametric techniques for pitch scale and time‐scale modification of speech. Speech Communication 1995; 16((2))175–205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakatani L. H., Schaffer J. A. Hearing “words” without words. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1978; 63: 234–245
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nooteboom S. G. The perceptual reality of some prosodic durations. Journal of Phonetics 1973; 1: 25–45
   Google Scholar
• Nooteboom S. G. A functional view of prosodic timing. Time, mind and behavior, J. A Michon, J. L Jackson. Springer‐Verlag, New York 1985
   Google Scholar
• Nooteboom S. G., Scharpff P., Van Heuven V. J. Effects of several pause strategies on the recognizability of words in synthetic speech. International Conference on spoken language processing. 1990; 385–387, Kobe, Japan, Vol. 1
   Google Scholar
• Price P. J., Ostendorf M., Shattuck‐Hufnagel S., Fong C. The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1991; 90((6))2956–2970
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qi Y., Weinberg B. Characteristics of voicing source waveforms produced by oesophageal and tracheoesophageal speakers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1995; 38: 536–548
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robbins J., Fisher H. B., Blom E. C., Singer M. I. A comparitive acoustic study of normal, oesophageal and tracheoesophageal speech production. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 1984; 49: 202–210
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rietveld A. C. M., Gussenhoven C. On the relation between pitch excursion size and prominence. Journal of Phonetics 1985; 13: 299–308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanderman A. A., Collier R. Prosodic phrasing and comprehension. Language and Speech 1997; 40: 391–409
   Google Scholar
• Scharpff P., Van Heuven V. J. Effects of pause insertion on the intelligibility of low quality speech. Proceedings of the 7th FASE Symposium. 1988; 261–268, Edinburgh
   Google Scholar
• Scott D. R. Duration as a cue to the perception of a phrase boundary. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1982; 71((4))996–1007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shattuck‐Hufnagel S., Turk A. E. A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 1996; 25((2))193–247
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snidecor J. C., Curry E. T. Temporal and pitch aspects of superior oesophageal speech. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology 1959; 68: 1–14
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Streeter L. A. Acoustic determinants of phrase boundary perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1978; 64((6))1582–1592
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studebaker G. A. A rationalized arcsine transform. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1985; 28: 455–462
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Terken J. M. B., Collier R. Syntactic influences on prosody. Speech Perception, Production and Linguistic Structure, Y Tokhura, E Vatikiotis‐Bateson, Y Sagisaki. IOS, Amsterdam 1992
   Google Scholar
• Van den Berg J., Moolenaar‐Bijl A. J. Crico‐pharyngeal sphincter, pitch, intensity and fluency in oesophageal speech. Pract. Oto‐rhino‐laryngology 1959; 21: 298–315
   Google Scholar
• Van Rossum M. A., De Krom G., Nooteboom S. G., Quené H. “Pitch” accent in alaryngeal speech. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 2002; 45: 1106–1118
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Zanten E., Damen L., van Houten E. The ASSP speech database. SPIN/ASSP‐report 1991; 41, Speech Technology foundation, Utrecht, the Netherlands
   Google Scholar
• Wightman C. W., Shattuck‐Hufnagel S., Price P. Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1992; 91((3))1707–1717
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar