Sex differences in perceived speech intelligibility in patients with facial nerve palsy.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Raymond Hayler, Emma Charters, Susan Coulson, Tsu-Hui Hubert Low
{"title":"Sex differences in perceived speech intelligibility in patients with facial nerve palsy.","authors":"Raymond Hayler, Emma Charters, Susan Coulson, Tsu-Hui Hubert Low","doi":"10.1080/17549507.2023.2259136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Facial nerve palsy (FNP) affects physical and social function, including speech. There exists discrepancy between professional and patient perception of appearance following FNP; however, speech differences remain unknown. We aimed to compare ratings of speech intelligibility by different listeners.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Patients were identified through the Sydney Facial Nerve Service. FNP related scoring was obtained using the Sunnybrook Facial Grading System, Sydney Facial Grading Score, Facial Disability Index, and Speech Handicap Index. Intelligibility was scored by a speech-language pathologist, member of the public, and patient using a standardised passage. FNP scoring and intelligibility were compared using interclass coefficients (ICC).</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>Forty patients were recruited (females = 20). There was no difference in FNP scoring, nor between the frequency or types of phonemic errors. Observers' rating of intelligibility had an ICC of 0.807, compared with 0.266 and 0.344 for patients compared to the member of the public and speech-language pathologist respectively. Observers rated males and females intelligibility similar (<i>p</i> > 0.05), but females rated their intelligibility lower than males (74.5 ± 12.8 vs. 82.5 ± 8.4, <i>p</i> = 0.025).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients, particularly females, perceive their speech to be less intelligible than observers. Clinicians should be aware of this discrepancy, which does not correlate with physical function.</p>","PeriodicalId":49047,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","volume":" ","pages":"884-889"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2023.2259136","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Facial nerve palsy (FNP) affects physical and social function, including speech. There exists discrepancy between professional and patient perception of appearance following FNP; however, speech differences remain unknown. We aimed to compare ratings of speech intelligibility by different listeners.

Method: Patients were identified through the Sydney Facial Nerve Service. FNP related scoring was obtained using the Sunnybrook Facial Grading System, Sydney Facial Grading Score, Facial Disability Index, and Speech Handicap Index. Intelligibility was scored by a speech-language pathologist, member of the public, and patient using a standardised passage. FNP scoring and intelligibility were compared using interclass coefficients (ICC).

Result: Forty patients were recruited (females = 20). There was no difference in FNP scoring, nor between the frequency or types of phonemic errors. Observers' rating of intelligibility had an ICC of 0.807, compared with 0.266 and 0.344 for patients compared to the member of the public and speech-language pathologist respectively. Observers rated males and females intelligibility similar (p > 0.05), but females rated their intelligibility lower than males (74.5 ± 12.8 vs. 82.5 ± 8.4, p = 0.025).

Conclusion: Patients, particularly females, perceive their speech to be less intelligible than observers. Clinicians should be aware of this discrepancy, which does not correlate with physical function.

面神经麻痹患者感知言语清晰度的性别差异。
目的:面神经麻痹(FNP)影响身体和社会功能,包括言语。FNP术后,专业和患者对外观的感知存在差异;然而,言语差异仍然未知。我们旨在比较不同听众对语音清晰度的评分。方法:通过悉尼面神经服务中心确定患者。使用Sunnybrook面部分级系统、Sydney面部分级评分、面部残疾指数和言语障碍指数获得FNP相关评分。语言病理学家、公众和患者使用标准化的短文对其可理解性进行评分。使用组间系数(ICC)比较FNP评分和可懂度。结果:招募了40名患者(女性 = 20) 。FNP评分没有差异,音位错误的频率或类型也没有差异。观察者对可懂度的评分为0.807,而与公众和语言病理学家相比,患者的可懂度分别为0.266和0.344。观察者认为男性和女性的可理解性相似(p > 0.05),但女性对其可理解性的评价低于男性(74.5 ± 12.8对82.5 ± 8.4,p = 0.025)。结论:患者,尤其是女性,认为自己的语言比观察者更难理解。临床医生应该意识到这种与身体功能无关的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
73
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology is an international journal which promotes discussion on a broad range of current clinical and theoretical issues. Submissions may include experimental, review and theoretical discussion papers, with studies from either quantitative and/or qualitative frameworks. Articles may relate to any area of child or adult communication or dysphagia, furthering knowledge on issues related to etiology, assessment, diagnosis, intervention, or theoretical frameworks. Articles can be accompanied by supplementary audio and video files that will be uploaded to the journal’s website. Special issues on contemporary topics are published at least once a year. A scientific forum is included in many issues, where a topic is debated by invited international experts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信