Esophageal speeches modified by the Speech Enhancer Program^®

References

• Hillman RE, Walsh MJ, Wolf GT, Fisher SG, Hong WK. Research speech–language pathologists, speech–language pathologists at participating VA medical centers, and the department of veterans affairs laryngeal cancer study group. Functional outcomes following treatment for advanced laryngeal cancer part I # voice preservation in advanced laryngeal cancer part II # laryngectomy rehabilitation: the state of the art in the VA system. Annals of Otology. Rhinology and Laryngology. 1998; 5: 1–27.
   Google Scholar
• Topaloğlu I, Koçak I, Saltürk Z. Multidimensional evaluation of vocal function after suprecricoid laryngectomy with cricohyoidopexy. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology. 2012; 6: 407–12.
   Google Scholar
• Schuster M, Lohscheller J, Kummer P, Hoppe U, Eysholdt U, Rosanowski F. Quality of life in laryngectomy after prosthetic voice restoration. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica. 2003; 5: 211–19.
   Google Scholar
• Culton GL, Gerwin JM. Current trends in laryngectomy rehabilitation: a survey of speech–language pathologists. Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery. 1998; 4: 458–63.
   Google Scholar
• Finiza C, Bergman B. Health-related quality of life in patients with laryngeal cancer: a post-treatment comparison of different modes of communication. Laryngoscope. 2001; 5: 918–23.
   Google Scholar
• Searl J. Bilabial contact pressure and oral air pressure during tracheoesophageal speech. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology. 2007; 4: 304–11.
   Google Scholar
• Max L, Steurs W, De Bruyn W. Vocal capacities in esophageal and tracheoesophageal speakers. Laryngoscope. 1966; 1: 93–6.
   Google Scholar
• Salmon SJ.Doyl PC, Keitch RL. Commonalities among alaryngeal speech methods. Contemporary considerations in the treatment and rehabilitation of head and neck cancer: voice, speech, and swallowing. 2005; Austin, TX: PRO-ED.59–74.
   Google Scholar
• Clark JG, Stemple JC. Assessment of three modes of laryngeal speech with a synthetic sentence identification (SSI) task in varying message-to-competition ratios. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 1982; 3: 333–8.
   Google Scholar
• Bohnenkamp TA, Forrest KM, Klaben BK, Stager J. Lung volumes used during speech breathing in tracheoesophageal speakers. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology. 2011; 8: 550–8.
   Google Scholar
• Schuster M, Lohscheller J, Kummer P, Hoppe U, Eysholdt U, Rosanowski F. Voice handicap of laryngectomy with tracheoesophageal speech. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica. 2004; 1: 62–7.
   Google Scholar
• Attieh AY, Searl J, Shahaltough NH, Wreikat MM, Lundy D. Voice restoration following total laryngectomy by tracheoesophageal prosthesis: effect on patients’ quality of life and voice handicap in Jordan. Health Quality Life Outcomes. 2008; 6:26–35
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manochiopinig S, Pracharitpukdee N, Lerstsarunyapong S. The articulation characteristics of normal Thai children aged 3–10 years assessing by using the Thai Articulation Test (TAT). Siriraj Medical Journal. 1998; 8: 763–9.
   Google Scholar
• Manochiopinig S, Thubthong N, Kayasith P. Dysarthric speech characteristics speech of Thai stroke patients. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology. 2008; 6: 332–8.
   Google Scholar
• Huang DZ. Dr. Speech. 1998; Seattle, WA: Tiger DRS.
   Google Scholar
• Tuangpermsub N, Boonpramuk P, Polwisate W, Kayasith P. Improvement of esophageal speech by adaptive line enhancement with bias model. 2008; 74–7. The 2nd International Convention on Rehabilitation Engineering & Assistive Technology. Bangkok, Thailand: The Imperial Queen's Park. 13–15 May.
   Google Scholar
• Diedrich WM.Salmon SLJ, Mount KH. Anatomy and physiology of esophageal speech. Alaryngeal speech rehabilitation: for clinicians by clinicians. 1999; Austin, TX: PRO-ED.13–19.
   Google Scholar