Artificial neural network analysis to assess hypernasality in patients treated for oral or oropharyngeal cancer

References

• Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Hilgers FJ, Keus RB, Koopmans-van Beinum FJ, Greven AJ, de Jong JM, . Multidimensional assessment of voice characteristics after radiotherapy for early glottic cancer. Laryngoscope. 1999;109(2 Pt 1): 241–8.
   Google Scholar
• Borggreven PA, Aaronson NK, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Muller MJ, Heiligers ML, Bree R, . Quality of life after surgical treatment for oral and oropharyngeal cancer: a prospective longitudinal assessment of patients reconstructed by a microvascular flap. Oral Oncol. 2007;43:1034–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rinkel RN, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, van Reij EJ, Aaronson NK, Leemans CR. Speech Handicap Index in patients with oral and pharyngeal cancer: better understanding of patients’ complaints. Head Neck. 2008;30:868–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Molen L, van Rossum MA, Burkhead LM, Smeele LE, Hilgers FJ. Functional outcomes and rehabilitation strategies in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy for advanced head and neck cancer: a systematic review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;266:901–2.
   Google Scholar
• de Bruijn MJ, ten Bosch L, Kuik DJ, Quene H, Langendijk JA, Leemans CR, . Objective acoustic-phonetic speech analysis in patients treated for oral or oropharyngeal cancer. Folia PhoniatrLogop. 2009;61:180–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van As CJ, Koopmans-van Beinum FJ, Pols LC, Hilgers FJ. Perceptual evaluation of tracheoesophageal speech by naive and experienced judges through the use of semantic differential scales. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003;46:947–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundstrom E, Hammarberg B, Munck-Wikland E, Edsborg N. The pharyngoesophageal segment in laryngectomees—videoradiographic, acoustic, and voice quality perceptual data. LogopedPhoniatrVocol. 2008;33:115–25.
   Google Scholar
• Borggreven PA, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Langendijk JA, Doornaert P, Koster MN, de Bree R, . Speech outcome after surgical treatment for oral and oropharyngeal cancer: a longitudinal assessment of patients reconstructed by a microvascular flap. Head Neck. 2005;27:785–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazi R, Prasad VM, Kanagalingam J, Georgalas C, Venkitaraman R, Nutting CM, . Analysis of formant frequencies in patients with oral or oropharyngeal cancers treated by glossectomy. Int J Lang CommunDisord. 2007;42:521–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, Cornut G, Crevier-Buchman L, Friedrich G, . A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Guideline elaborated by the Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2001;258:77–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kempster GB, Gerratt BR, Verdolini AK, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Hillman RE. Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009;18:124–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamaguchi H, Shrivastav R, Andrews ML, Niimi S. A comparison of voice quality ratings made by Japanese and American listeners using the GRBAS scale. Folia PhoniatrLogop. 2003;55:147–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Ito M. When and why listeners disagree in voice quality assessment tasks. J AcoustSoc Am. 2007;122:2354–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McConnel FM, Pauloski BR, Logemann JA, Rademaker AW, Colangelo L, Shedd D, . Functional results of primary closure vs flaps in oropharyngeal reconstruction: a prospective study of speech and swallowing. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:625–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshida H, Furuya Y, Shimodaira K, Kanazawa T, Kataoka R, Takahashi K. Spectral characteristics of hypernasality in maxillectomy patients. J Oral Rehabil. 2000;27:723–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sumita YI, Ozawa S, Mukohyama H, Ueno T, Ohyama T, Taniguchi H. Digital acoustic analysis of five vowels in maxillectomy patients. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29:649–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee AS, Ciocca V, Whitehill TL. Acoustic correlates of hypernasality. Clin Linguist Phon. 2003;17:259–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markkanen-Leppanen M, Isotalo E, Makitie AA, Suominen E, Asko-Seljavaara S, Haapanen ML. Speech aerodynamics and nasalance in oral cancer patients treated with microvascular transfers. J Craniofac Surg. 2005;16:990–5.
   Google Scholar
• Wallen EJ, Hansen JHL. A screening test for speech pathology assessment using objective quality measures. ICSLP 96 Proc. Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language; 1996, Oct 3; Philadelphia, PA. 776–9.
   Google Scholar
• King S, Taylor P. Detection of phonological features in continuous speech using neural networks. Comp Speech Lang. 2000;14:333–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuster M, Haderlein T, Noth E, Lohscheller J, Eysholdt U, Rosanowski F. Intelligibility of laryngectomees’ substitute speech: automatic speech recognition and subjective rating. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;263:188–93.
   Google Scholar
• Haderlein T, Riedhammer K, Noth E, Toy H, Schuster M, Eysholdt U, . Application of automatic speech recognition to quantitative assessment of tracheoesophageal speech with different signal quality. Folia PhoniatrLogop. 2009; 61:12–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Windrich M, Maier A, Kohler R, Noth E, Nkenke E, Eysholdt U, . Automatic quantification of speech intelligibility of adults with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Folia PhoniatrLogop. 2008;60:151–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjordal K, Hammerlid E, Ahlner-Elmqvist M, de Graeff A, Boysen M, Evensen JF, . Quality of life in head and neck cancer patients: validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-H&N35. J ClinOncol. 1999;17:1008–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, . The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boersma P, Weenink D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 4.6.28) [computer program] Version 5.2.35. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Nabil N, Espy-Wilson CY. A signal representation of speech based on phonetic features. 1995. May 22, Inst. of Tech., Utica/Rome. 310–5.
   Google Scholar
• Nabil N, Espy-Wilson CY. A knowledge-based signal representation for speech recognition. Atlanta, Georgia; 1996. 29–32.
   Google Scholar
• Deng L, Sun DX. A statistical approach to automatic speech recognition using the atomic speech units constructed from overlapping articulatory features. J AcoustSoc Am.1994;95: 2702–19.
   Google Scholar
• Erler K, Freeman GH. An HMM-based speech recognizer using overlapping articulatory features. J AcoustSoc Am. 1996;100:2500–13.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson T, Hochberg M, Renals S. The use of recurrent neural networks in continuous speech recognition. Lee C-H, Soong F, Automatic speech and speaker recognition—advanced topics. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1996. 233–58.
   Google Scholar
• Bridle J, Deng L, Picone J, Richards H, Ma J, Kamm T, . An investigation of segmental hidden dynamic models of speech coarticulation for automatic speech recognition. Johns Hopkins University. CLSP/JHU Summer Workshop on Language Engineering 1998.
   Google Scholar
• [computer program]. 2001. Available at: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/IFA-SpokenLanguageCorpora/IFAcorpus.
   Google Scholar
• Graupe D. Principles of artificial neural networks. World Scientific Publishing Company; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• [computer program]. 2007. Available at: http://nico.nikkostrom.com/.
   Google Scholar
• Whitehill TL, Ciocca V, Chan JC, Samman N. Acoustic analysis of vowels following glossectomy. Clin Linguist Phon. 2006;20:135–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar