Hypothesis/Objectives: This study’s objective was to develop a method to evaluate the chaotic characteristic of alaryngeal speech. The proposed method will be capable of distinguishing between normal and alaryngeal voices, including esophageal (SE) and tracheoesophageal (TE) voices. It has been previously shown that alaryngeal voices exhibit chaotic characteristics due to the aperiodicity of their signals. The proposed method will be applied for future use to quantify both chaos behavior (CB) and the difference between SE and TE voices. Study Design: A total of 74 voice recordings including 34 normal and 40 alaryngeal (26 SE and 14 TE) were used in the study. Voice samples were analyzed to distinguish alaryngeal voices from normal voices and to investigate different chaotic characteristics of SE and TE speech. Methods: A chaotic distribution detection-based method was used to investigate the CB of alaryngeal voices. This CB was used to detect the difference between SE and TE voice types. Quantification of the CB parameter was performed. Statistical analyses were used to compare the results of the CB analysis for both the SE and TE voices. Results: Statistical analysis revealed that CB effectively differentiated between all normal and alaryngeal voice types (p < 0.01). Subsequent multiclass receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated that CB (area under the curve) possessed the greatest classification accuracy relative to correlation dimension (D2). Conclusions: The CB metric shows strong promise as an accurate, useful metric for objective differentiation between all normal and alaryngaeal, SE and TE voice types. The CB calculations showed expected results, as SE voices have significantly more CB than TE voices, constituting substantial improvement over previous methods and becoming the first SE and TE classification method. This metric can help clinicians obtain additional acoustic information when monitoring the efficacy of treatment for patients undergoing total laryngectomies.

1.
Kramp
B
,
Dommerich
S
.
Tracheostomy cannulas and voice prosthesis
.
GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg
.
2009
;
8
:
Doc05
.
2.
Elmiyeh
B
,
Dwivedi
RC
,
Jallali
N
,
Chisholm
EJ
,
Kazi
R
,
Clarke
PM
,
Surgical voice restoration after total laryngectomy: an overview
.
Indian J Cancer
.
2010
;
47
(
3
):
239
47
.
3.
Ng
ML
.
The use of the Lombard effect in improving alaryngeal speech
.
J Voice
.
2019
;
35
(
1
):
18
28
.
4.
Ng
ML
,
Kwok
CL
,
Chow
SF
.
Speech performance of adult Cantonese-speaking laryngectomees using different types of alaryngeal phonation
.
J Voice
.
1997
;
11
(
3
):
338
44
.
5.
Debruyne
F
,
Delaere
P
,
Wouters
J
,
Uwents
P
.
Acoustic analysis of tracheo-oesophageal versus oesophageal speech
.
J Laryngol Otol
.
1994
;
108
(
4
):
325
8
.
6.
Williams
SE
,
Watson
JB
.
Speaking proficiency variations according to method of alaryngeal voicing
.
Laryngoscope
.
1987
;
97
:
737
9
.
7.
Guttman
MR
.
Rehabilitation of the voice in laryngectomized patients
.
Arch Otolaryngol
.
1932
;
15
:
478
88
.
8.
Malik
T
,
Bruce
I
,
Cherry
J
.
Surgical complications of tracheo-oesophageal puncture and speech valves
.
Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
.
2007
;
15
(
2
):
117
22
.
9.
Singer
S
,
Merbach
M
,
Dietz
A
,
Schwarz
R
.
Psychosocial determinants of successful voice rehabilitation after laryngectomy
.
J Chin Med Assoc
.
2007
;
70
(
10
):
407
23
.
10.
Pindzola
RH
,
Cain
BH
.
Acceptability ratings of tracheoesophageal speech
.
Laryngoscope
.
1988
;
98
:
394
7
.
11.
Max
L
,
Steurs
W
,
De Bruyn
W
.
Vocal capacities in esophageal and tracheoesophageal speakers
.
Laryngoscope
.
1996
;
106
(
1 Pt 1
):
93
6
.
12.
Searl
J
.
Alaryngeal speech aerodynamics: lower and upper airway considerations
. In:
Doyle
P
, editor.
Clinical care and rehabilitation in head and neck cancer
.
Berlin
:
Springer
;
2019
.
13.
Ng
ML
,
Liu
H
,
Zhao
Q
,
Lam
PKY
.
Long-term average spectral characteristics of Cantonese alaryngeal speech
.
Auris Nasus Larynx
.
2009
;
36
:
571
7
.
14.
Robbins
J
.
Acoustic differentiation of laryngeal, esophageal, and tracheoesophageal speech
.
J Speech Hear Res
.
1984
;
27
:
577
85
.
15.
Robbins
J
,
Fisher
HB
,
Blom
EC
,
Singer
MI
.
A comparative acoustic study of normal, esophageal, and tracheoesophageal speech production
.
J Speech Hear Disord
.
1984
;
49
:
202
10
.
16.
Ainsworth
WA
,
Singh
W
.
Perceptual comparison of neoglottal, oesophageal and normal speech
.
Folia Phoniatr
.
1992
;
44
:
297
307
.
17.
Sanderson
RJ
,
Anderson
SJ
,
Denholm
S
,
Kerr
AI
.
The assessment of alaryngeal speech
.
Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci
.
1993
;
18
(
3
):
181
3
.
18.
Van As
CJ
,
Hilgers
FJ
,
Verdonck-de Leeuw
IM
,
Koopmans-van Beinum
F
.
Acoustical analysis and perceptual evaluation of tracheoesophageal prosthetic voice
.
J Voice
.
1998
;
12
(
2
):
239
48
.
19.
Van As-Brooks
CJ
,
Koopmans-van Beinum
FJ
,
Pols
LCW
,
Hilgers
FJM
.
Acoustic signal typing for evaluation of voice quality in tracheoesphageal speech
.
J Voice
.
2006
;
20
(
3
):
355
68
.
20.
Clapham
RP
,
van As-Brooks
CJ
,
van Son
RJJH
,
Frans
J
,
Hilgers
FJM
,
van den Brekel
MWM
.
The relationship between acoustic signal typing and perceptual evaluation of tracheoesophageal voice quality for sustained vowels
.
J Voice
.
2015
;
29
(
4
):
517.e23
9
.
21.
MacCallum
JK
,
Cai
L
,
Zhou
L
,
Zhang
Y
,
Jiang
JJ
.
Acoustic analysis of aperiodic voice: perturbation and nonlinear dynamic properties in esophageal phonation
.
J Voice
.
2009
;
23
(
3
):
283
90
.
22.
Yan
N
,
Ng
ML
,
Wang
D
,
Zhang
L
,
Chan
V
,
Ho
RS
,
Nonlinear dynamical analysis of laryngeal, esophageal, and tracheoesophageal speech of Cantonese
.
J Voice
.
2013
;
27
(
1
):
101
10
.
23.
Yan
N
,
Ng
ML
,
Wang
D
,
Chan
V
,
Zhang
L
.
Nonlinear dynamics of voices in esophageal phonation
.
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc
.
2011
;
2011
:
2732
5
.
24.
Jiang
JJ
,
Zhang
Y
,
McGilligan
C
.
Chaos in voice, from modeling to measurement
.
J Voice
.
2006
;
20
(
1
):
2
17
.
25.
Moon
FC
.
Chaotic and fractal dynamics: an introduction for applied scientists and engineers
.
New York
:
Wiley
;
1992
.
26.
Zhang
Y
,
McGilligan
C
,
Zhou
L
,
Vig
M
,
Jiang
JJ
.
Nonlinear dynamic analysis of voices before and after surgical excision of vocal polyps
.
J Acoust Soc Am
.
2004
;
115
(
5
):
2270
7
.
27.
Zhang
Y
,
Jiang
JJ
,
Biazzo
L
,
Jorgensen
M
.
Perturbation and nonlinear dynamic analyses of voices from patients with unilateral laryngeal paralysis
.
J Voice
.
2005
;
19
(
4
):
519
28
.
28.
Tao
C
,
Jiang
JJ
.
Chaotic component obscured by strong periodicity in voice production system
.
Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys
.
2008
;
77
(
6
):
061922
.
29.
Packard
NH
,
Crutchfield
JP
,
Farmer
JD
,
Shaw
RS
.
Geometry from a time series
.
Phys Rev Lett
.
1980
;
45
(
9
):
712
6
.
30.
Awan
SN
,
Roy
N
,
Jiang
JJ
.
Nonlinear dynamic analysis of disordered voice: the relationship between the correlation dimension (D2) and pre-/post-treatment change in perceived dysphonia severity
.
J Voice
.
2010
;
24
:
285
93
.
31.
Fraser
AM
,
Swinney
HL
.
Independent coordinates for strange attractors from mutual information
.
Phys Rev A Gen Phys
.
1986
;
33
:
1134
40
.
32.
Gottwald
GA
,
Melbourne
I
.
On the validity of the 0–1 test for chaos
.
Nonlinearity
.
2009
;
22
(
6
):
1367
82
.
33.
Gottwald
GA
,
Melbourne
I
.
On the implementation of the 0–1 test for chaos
.
SIAM J Appl Dyn Syst
.
2009
;
8
(
1
):
129
45
.
34.
Kelley
K
,
Preacher
KJ
.
On effect size
.
Psychol Methods
.
2012
;
17
(
2
):
137
52
.
35.
Jiang
JJ
,
Zhang
Y
,
Ford
CN
.
Nonlinear dynamics of phonations in excised larynx experiments
.
J Acoust Soc Am
.
2003
;
114
(
4
):
2198
205
.
36.
Liu
B
,
Polce
E
,
Sprott
JC
,
Jiang
JJ
.
Applied chaos level test for validation of signal conditions underlying optimal performance of voice classification methods
.
J Speech Lang Hear Res
.
2018
;
61
(
5
):
1130
9
.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.