Analysis of oral-nasal balance after intensive speech therapy combined with speech bulb in speakers with cleft palate and hypernasality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the combination of a speech bulb with an intensive speech therapy program in hypernasal participants with cleft palate. METHODS: Twenty hypernasal speakers with cleft palate (12 females and 8 males, median age 28.45 years), who were wearing speech bulbs underwent an intensive speech therapy program of 45 sessions over 3 weeks. Three experienced speech-language pathologists rated the participants' speech recordings before and after intensive speech therapy, with and without the speech bulb. Nasometric recordings and long-term averaged spectra were also analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVAs. RESULTS: The ANOVA of the hypernasality ratings showed significant effects of therapy [F (1,19) = 15.97; p < .001], speech bulb [F(1,190 = 28.54, p < .001] and a therapy -speech bulb interaction effect [F(1.19) = 22.30, p < 0.001]. The most favorable listener ratings of hypernasality were obtained post-therapy when participants were wearing their speech bulbs. Without the speech bulb, intensive speech therapy by itself did not result in a significant improvement. With speech bulb, nasalance scores for high [F (1,19) = 14.07, p < .001] and low pressure [F (1,19) = 14.84, p < .001] sentences were significantly lower post-therapy, providing preliminary evidence that an intensive speech therapy program may enhance the effect of a speech bulb. Before and after comparisons of individual nasalance profiles demonstrated variable improvement in 15 participants, no progress in 2 participants and more severe hypernasality after therapy in 3 participants. Long-term averaged spectra corroborated the findings of the perceptual analysis. Based on a frequency bin from 201 to 300 Hz, there was a significant within-subject effect for with and without speech bulb [F(1, 18) = 4.54, p = .047] as well as for before vs. after session [F (1,18) = 7.14, p = .015]. CONCLUSION: The speech bulb in combination with intensive speech therapy resulted in improved oral-nasal balance for the majority of participants. More research is needed to investigate long-term outcomes as well as individual factors contributing to therapy success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".