CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 94Cleft Lip and Palate ResearchLanguage Development and DisordersPhonetics and Phonology Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of speech intelligibility for children with cleft lip and palate by means of automatic speech recognition

Schuster, Maria, Maier, Andreas, Haderlein, Tino, Nkenke, Emeka, Wohlleben, Ulrike, Rosanowski, Frank, Eysholdt, Ulrich, Nöth, Elmar·2006·International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology
DOI 10.1016/j.ijporl.2006.05.016
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective Cleft lip and palate (CLP) may cause functional limitations even after adequate surgical and non-surgical treatment, speech disorders being one of them. Interindividually, they vary a lot, showing typical articulation specifics such as nasal emission and shift of articulation and therefore a diminished intelligibility. Until now, an objective means to determine and quantify the intelligibility does not exist. Method An automatic speech recognition system, a new method, was applied on recordings of a standard test to evaluate articulation disorders (psycholinguistic analysis of speech disorders of children PLAKSS) of 31 children at the age of 10.1+/-3.8 years. Two had an isolated cleft lip, 20 a unilateral cleft lip and palate, 4 a bilateral cleft lip and palate, and 5 an isolated cleft palate. The speech recognition system was trained with adults and children without speech disorders and adapted to the speech of children with CLP. In this study, the automatic speech evaluation focussed on the word accuracy which represents the percentage of correctly recognized words. Results were confronted to a perceptive evaluation of intelligibility that was performed by a panel of three experts. Results The automatic speech recognition yielded word accuracies between 1.2 and 75.8% (mean 48.0+/-19.6%). The word accuracy was lowest for children with isolated cleft palate (36.9+/-23.3) and highest for children with isolated cleft lip (72.8+/-2.9). For children with unilateral clef…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijporl.2006.05.016

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Current speech recognition systems are poorly equipped to process the speech variance and impaired speech intelligibility due to, e.g., oral cancer, cleft lip and palate, or stroke survivors.

    “Current speech recognition systems are poorly equipped to process the speech variance and impaired speech intelligibility due to, e.g., oral cancer (Halpern et al. 2020), cleft lip and palate (Schuster et al. 2006) or stroke survivors (Jacks et al. 2019).”

    From “Alexa, who am I?”: Voice Assistants and Hermeneutic Lemniscate as the Technologically Mediated Sense-Making (2021) · cites this paper as Schuster et al. 2006

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Derijcke, 1996, The incidence of oral cleft: a review, Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg., 34, 488, 10.1016/S0266-4356(96)90242-9 · DOI
  2. Harding, 1996, Characteristics of cleft palate speech, Eur. J. Disord. Commun., 31, 331, 10.3109/13682829609031326 · DOI
  3. Pamplona, 2000, Linguistic development in cleft palate patients with and without compensatory articulation disorder, Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol., 54, 81, 10.1016/S0165-5876(00)00332-3 · DOI
  4. Rosanowski, 2002, Phoniatric aspects in cleft lip patients, Facial Plast. Surg., 18, 197, 10.1055/s-2002-33066 · DOI
  5. Schönweiler, 1996, Untersuchungen zum Spracherwerb bei Kindern mit Spaltbildungen, Folia Phoniatr. Logop., 48, 92, 10.1159/000266390 · DOI
  6. Schönweiler, 1994, Hörvermögen und Sprachleistungen bei 417 Kindern mit Spaltfehlbildungen, HNO, 42, 691
  7. Van Lierde, 2004, Vocal quality characteristics in children with cleft palate: a multiparameter approach, J. Voice, 18, 354, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2003.12.006 · DOI
  8. Chapman, 1998, Conversational skills of preschool and school-age children with cleft lip and palate, Cleft Palate Craniofac. J., 35, 503, 10.1597/1545-1569(1998)035<0503:CSOPAS>2.3.CO;2 · DOI
  9. Richman, 1982, Psychological characteristics of children with cleft lip and palate: intellectual, achievement, behavioral and personality variables, Cleft Palate J., 19, 249
  10. Millard, 2001, Different cleft conditions, facial appearance, and speech: relationship to psychological variables, Cleft Palate Craniofac. J., 38, 68, 10.1597/1545-1569(2001)038<0068:DCCFAA>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  11. Lohmander, 2004, Methodology for perceptual assessment of speech in patients with cleft palate: a critical review of the literature, Cleft Palate Craniofac. J., 41, 64, 10.1597/02-136 · DOI
  12. Küttner, 2003, Objektive Messung der Nasalanz in der deutschen Hochlautung, HNO, 51, 151, 10.1007/s00106-002-0708-7 · DOI
  13. Van Lierde, 2002, Effect of cleft type on overall speech intelligibility and resonance, Folia Phoniatr. Logop., 54, 158, 10.1159/000063411 · DOI
  14. Hogen Esch, 2004, Objectivating nasality in healthy and velopharyngeal insufficient children with the nasalance acquisition system (Nasal View). Defining minimal required speech tasks assessing normative values for Dutch language, Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol., 68, 1039, 10.1016/j.ijporl.2004.03.011 · DOI
  15. Bressmann, 1998, Perzeptive und apparative Untersuchung der Stimmqualität bei Patienten mit Lippen-Kiefer-Gaumenspalten, Laryngorhinootologie, 77, 700, 10.1055/s-2007-997227 · DOI
  16. Heppt, 1991, Nasalanz—ein neuer Begriff der objektiven Nasalitätsanalyse, Laryngo-Rhino-Otol, 70, 169
  17. E.G. Schukat-Talamazzini, H. Niemann, Das ISADORA-System—ein akustisch-phonetisches Netzwerk zur automatischen Spracherkennung. In: Radig, B., (Ed.), Mustererkennung 1991, vol. 290 Informatik Fachberichte Springer, Berlin, 1991. pp. 251–258. · DOI
  18. Gallwitz, 1999, Speech recognition—state of the art, applications, and future prospects, Wirtschaftsinformatik, 41, 538, 10.1007/BF03250681 · DOI
  19. G. Stemmer, C. Hacker, S. Steidl, E. Nöth, Acoustic normalization of children's speech, in: Proceedings of European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, vol. 2, Geneva, Switzerland, 2003, pp. 1313–1316. · DOI
  20. Gauvain, 1994, Maximum a-posteriori estimation for Gaussian mixture observations of Markov chains, IEEE Trans. Speech Audio Process., 2, 291, 10.1109/89.279278 · DOI
  21. Davies, 1982, Measuring agreement for multinomial data, Biometrics, 38, 1047, 10.2307/2529886 · DOI
  22. Schuster, 2006, Intelligibility of laryngectomees’ substitute speech: automatic speech recognition and subjective rating, Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol., 263, 188, 10.1007/s00405-005-0974-6 · DOI
  23. Haapanen, 1994, Cleft type and speech proficiency, Folia Phoniatr. Logop., 46, 57, 10.1159/000266293 · DOI
  24. Wilpon, 1996, A study of speech recognition for children and the elderly, Proc. ICASSP, 349
  25. Likert, 1932, A technique for the measurement of attitudes, Arch. Psychol., 140, 1
  26. Spector, 1976, Choosing response categories for summated rating scales, J. Appl. Psychol., 61, 374, 10.1037/0021-9010.61.3.374 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Schuster, M., Maier, A., Haderlein, T., Nkenke, E., Wohlleben, U., Rosanowski, F., Eysholdt, U., & Nöth, E.
Affiliations
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
Corresponding author
Schuster, Maria
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-10
Volume
70
Issue
10
Pages
1741-1747
ISSN
0165-5876 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijporl.2006.05.016
OpenAlex
W2114198624
Cited by
94
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Johannes und Frieda Marohn-Stiftung
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Cleft Lip and Palate Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
cleft lip and palate, speech intelligibility, speech recognition, articulation disorders, children, word accuracy, nasal emission, cleft palate, cleft lip
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Audiometry, Speech, Child, Child, Preschool, Cleft Lip, Cleft Palate, Female, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Regression Analysis, Speech Disorders, Speech Intelligibility

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review