A Review of the Effect of Age and Speech Stimulus on Nasalance Scores in Healthy Participants

Document Type : Review Articles

Authors

1 Department of Speech and Language Pathology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Instructor, Craniofacial Anomalies and Cleft Palate Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Craniofacial Anomalies and Cleft Palate Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Craniofacial Anomalies and Cleft Palate Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

10.22122/jrrs.v12i4.2640

Abstract

Introduction: Instrumental assessments can provide numerical values in nasality assessment. One of these instruments is the nasometer (Kay Elemetrics, Lincoln Park, NJ, USA). The nasometer measures the oral and nasal acoustic energy during speech and the resultant signal is expressed as a nasalance score. The aim of the current review was to study the impact of age and speech stimulus on nasalance score through a systematic review of studies on nasalance.Materials and Methods: The ASHA publication, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Wiley, ProQuest, IranDoc, and SID databases were searched using the keywords “nasalance”, “nasometer”, “normative nasalance score”, and “instrumental assessment of resonance disorders” for related articles published between 1990 and 2016.Results: Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 38 of the 67 published documents were selected to be reviewed. The review showed that different studies had obtained different results regarding the effect of age and speech stimulus on nasalance scores.Conclusion: As, in addition to age and speech stimulus, many factors (like language, accent, and gender) affect nasalance scores, a meta-analysis study seems to be necessary on this topic.

Keywords

  1. Hirschberg J, Bok S, Juhasz M, Trenovszki Z, Votisky P, Hirschberg A. Adaptation of nasometry to Hungarian language and experiences with its clinical application. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2006; 70(5): 785-98.
  2. Howard S, Lohmander A. Cleft palate speech: assessment and intervention. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.
  3. Sweeney T, Sell D, O'Regan M. Nasalance scores for normal-speaking Irish children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2004; 41(2): 168-74.
  4. Dalston RM, Warren DW, Dalston ET. The identification of nasal obstruction through clinical judgments of hyponasality and nasometric assessment of speech acoustics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991; 100(1): 59-65.
  5. Fletcher SG. "Nasalance" vs. listner judgements of nasality. Cleft Palate J 1976; 13: 31-44.
  6. Dalston RM, Warren DW. Comparison of Tonar II, pressure-flow, and listener judgments of hypernasality in the assessment of velopharyngeal function. Cleft Palate J 1986; 23(2): 108-15.
  7. Hardin MA, Van Demark DR, Morris HL, Payne MM. Correspondence between nasalance scores and listener judgments of hypernasality and hyponasality. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1992; 29(4): 346-51.
  8. Dalston RM, Neiman GS, Gonzalez-Landa G. Nasometric sensitivity and specificity: a cross-dialect and cross-culture study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1993; 30(3): 285-91.
  9. Van Lierde KM, De Bodt M, Van Borse J, Wuyts FL, Van Cauwenberge P. Effect of cleft type on overall speech intelligibility and resonance. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2002; 54(3): 158-68.
  10. Nellis JL, Neiman GS, Lehman JA. Comparison of Nasometer and listener judgments of nasality in the assessment of velopharyngeal function after pharyngeal flap surgery. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1992; 29(2): 157-63.
  11. Sweeney T, Sell D. Relationship between perceptual ratings of nasality and nasometry in children/adolescents with cleft palate and/or velopharyngeal dysfunction. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2008; 43(3): 265-82.
  12. Seaver EJ, Dalston RM, Leeper HA, Adams LE. A study of nasometric values for normal nasal resonance. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34(4): 715-21.
  13. Leeper HA, Rochet AP, MacKay IRA. Characteristics of nasalance in Canadian speakers of English and French. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing; 1992 Oct 13-16; Banff, Alberta, Canada.
  14. Rochet AP, Rochet BL, Sovis EA, Mielke DL. Characteristics of nasalance in speakers of Western Canadian English and French. Int J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol 1998; 22(2): 94-103.
  15. Nichols AC. Nasalance statistics for two Mexican populations. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1999; 36(1): 57-63.
  16. Van de Weijer J, Slis I. Nasaliteitsmeting met de nasometer. Logopedie en Foniatrie 1991; 63: 97-101.
  17. Van Lierde K, De Bodt M, Van Cauwenberge P. Nasometric values for normal nasal resonance in the speech of young Flemish adults. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2001; 38(2): 112-8.
  18. Hutchinson JM, Robinson KL, Nerbonne MA. Patterns of nasalance in a sample of normal gerontologic subjects. J Commun Disord 1978; 11(6): 469-81.
  19. Prathanee B, Thanaviratananich S, Pongjunyakul A, Rengpatanakij K. Nasalance scores for speech in normal Thai children. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2003; 37(6): 351-5.
  20. Mishima K, Sugii A, Yamada T, Imura H, Sugahara T. Dialectal and gender differences in nasalance scores in a Japanese population. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2008; 36(1): 8-10.
  21. Van Lierde KM, Wuyts FL, De Bodt M, Van Cauwenberge P. Age-related patterns of nasal resonance in normal Flemish children and young adults. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2003; 37(6): 344-50.
  22. Haapanen ML. Nasalance scores in normal Finnish speech. Folia Phoniatr (Basel) 1991; 43(4): 197-203.
  23. Brunnegard K, van Doorn J. Normative data on nasalance scores for Swedish as measured on the Nasometer: influence of dialect, gender, and age. Clin Linguist Phon 2009; 23(1): 58-69.
  24. Watterson T, Lewis K, Brancamp T. Comparison of Nasalance scores obtained with the Nasometer 6200 and the Nasometer II 6400. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2005; 42(5): 574-9.
  25. Awan SN, Omlor K, Watts CR. Effects of computer system and vowel loading on measures of nasalance. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2011; 54(5): 1284-94.
  26. Litzaw LL, Dalston RM. The effect of gender upon nasalance scores among normal adult speakers. J Commun Disord 1992; 25(1): 55-64.
  27. Mayo R, Floyd LA, Warren DW, Dalston RM, Mayo CM. Nasalance and nasal area values: cross-racial study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1996; 33(2): 143-9.
  28. van ,Doorn J, Purcell A. Nasalance levels in the speech of normal Australian children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1998; 35(4): 287-92.
  29. Kavanagh ML, Fee EJ, Kalinowski J, Doyle PC, Leeper HA. Nasometric values for three dialectal groups within the Atlantic provinces of Canada. Can J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol 1994; 18(1): 7-13.
  30. Tachimura T, Mori C, Hirata SI, Wada T. Nasalance score variation in normal adult Japanese speakers of Mid-West Japanese dialect. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2000; 37(5): 463-7.
  31. Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper: the basics of evidence-based medicine. 5th ed. London, UK: BMJ Books; 2014.
  32. Sarac ET, Kayikci ME, Ozkan S. Nasality evaluation of Turkish phonemes in vowel-consonant combinations. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 75(7): 894-8.
  33. Bettens K, Wuyts FL, De Graef C, Verhegge L, Van Lierde KM. Effects of age and gender in normal-speaking children on the nasality severity index: an objective multiparametric approach to hypernasality. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2013; 65(4): 185-92.
  34. Park M, Baek WS, Lee E, Koh KS, Kim BK, Baek R. Nasalance scores for normal Korean-speaking adults and children. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67(2): 173-7.
  35. Ghaemi H, Sobhani Rad D, Khodadoost M, Elyasi M, Mardani N. detecting normal values of nasalance scores in 7-11- year-old boys. Journal of Paramedical Sciences and Rehabilitation 2015; 4(2): 76-82. [In Persian].
  36. Hamdan AL, Ziade G, Jabbour J, Khneizer G, Kutkut I. Nasalance scores in Lebanese English-speaking adults using nasometric analysis. J Med Liban 2015; 63(4): 203-8.
  37. Kim HK, Yu XM, Cao YJ, Liu XM, Huang ZM. Dialectal and gender differences in nasalance for a Mandarin population. Clin Linguist Phon 2016; 30(2): 119-30.
  38. Ha S, Cho SH. Nasalance scores for normal Korean-speaking adults and children: Effects of age, vowel context, and stimulus length. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 79(8): 1235-9.
  39. Luyten A, D'haeseleer E, Hodges A, Galiwango G, Budolfsen T, Vermeersch H, et al. Normative nasalance data in Ugandan English-speaking children. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2012; 64(3): 131-6.
  40. Van der Heijden P, Hobbel HH, Van der Laan BF, Korsten-Meijer AG, Goorhuis-Brouwer SM. Nasometry normative data for young Dutch children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 75(3): 420-4.
  41. Becknal RS. Normative nasalance patterns in male and female speakers of Southern American English native to Texas [Thesis]. Fort Worth, TX: Texas Christian University; 2012.
  42. Okalidou A, Karathanasi A, Grigoraki E. Nasalance norms in Greek adults. Clin Linguist Phon 2011; 25(8): 671-88.
  43. Hashemi H, Jalilevand N, Ghorbani A, Kamali M. Nasalance scores in the speech of normal 3.5-6.5-years-old children, in Tehran, Iran. Audiology 2014; 23(2): 49-57. [In Persian].
  44. Ashtab F, Derakhshandeh F, Qofrani A, Naderifar E. Determining reliability and validity of SNAP test for evaluating speech nasality. Proceedings of 13th Iranian Congress of Speech and Language Therapy; 2015 May 5-7; Tehran, Iran. p. 23.
  45. Kummer AW. The MacKay-Kummer SNAP Test-R Simplified Nasometric Assessment Procedures Revised 2005. Lincoln Park, NJ: KayPentax; 2005.
  46. Marino VC, Dutka JC, de Boer G, Cardoso VM, Ramos RG, Bressmann T. Normative nasalance scores for Brazilian Portuguese using new speech stimuli. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2015; 67(5): 238-44.
  47. Kuttner C, Schonweiler R, Seeberger B, Dempf R, Lisson J, Ptok M. Normal nasalance for the German language. Nasometric values for clinical use in patients with cleft lip and palate. HNO 2003; 51(2): 151-6. [In German].
  48. Kummer AW. Cleft palate and craniofacial anomalies: effects on speech and resonance. 2nd ed. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning; 2007. p. 387-400.
Volume 12, Issue 4 - Serial Number 4
September 2016
Pages 243-251
  • Receive Date: 25 July 2016
  • Revise Date: 19 April 2024
  • Accept Date: 22 May 2022