Impact of Teacher’s Dysphonia on
Children’s Language Processing Skills.
Morsomme D 1 - Minel L1 - Verduyckt I ²
1.
2.
Ulg – Dpt Sciences Psychologiques: Cognition & Comportement,
Finalité Logopédie de la Voix
UCL – Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l’Éducation
Our Aim
• Investigate the impact of dysphonic teacher’s
voice on the speech processing of 68 children
• 2 studies
– Morton & Watson, 20011
– Rogerson & Dodd, 2005²
With dysphonic voice, performance is
impaired in comprehension of spoken words.
1. Morton, V. & Watson, D. R. (2001). The impact of impaired vocal quality on children's ability to process spoken language.
Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 26(1), 17 – 25.
2. Rogerson J, & Dodd B. (2005). Is there an effect of dysphonic teachers' voices on children's processing of spoken language
Journal of voice, 19(1), 47-60.
2
Method
• SUBJECTS:
– 68 students (34
- 34 )
– 2 classes (A/B)
– Mean Age : 8Y;5M (SD: 8M)
• TASKS:
– Individual subtests:
• Auditory Selective Attention Skills (NEPSY)
• Receptive Lexical Skills (ELO)
• Comprehensive Skills (ELO)
– Task 1: MCQ on a short story
– Task 2: Minimal Pair Discrimination (same/different)
3
4
5
Tout – Doux / Trois - Droit
Coup – Goût
6
Procedure
Dysphonic Voice – Normal Voice
Normal Voice – Dysphonic Voice
1. Comprehension Task
2. Discrimination Task
3. Question about voice quality.
7
Results
10
8
6
4
2
0
Normal Voice Dysphonic Voice
Discrimination Scores
Comprehension Scores
• Means Comparisons (Wilcoxon)
Dysphonic Voice < Control Voice (p<0.05)
8
6
4
2
0
Normal Voice
Dysphonic Voice
8
Results [ANOVA repeated mesures]
• Comparison of voice effect on the 2 tasks
– Interaction (p<0,05)
– Voice Effect: discrimination > Comprehension
T E S T *V O I X ; M o y . M o in d r e s C a r r é s
E ffe t c o u r a n t : F ( 1 , 6 7 ) = 9 ,5 2 5 3 , p = ,0 0 2 9 5
D é c o m p o s it io n e f f ic a c e d e l' h y p o t h è s e
L e s b a r r e s v e r t ic a le s r e p r é s e n t e n t le s in t e r v a lle s d e c o n f ia n c e à 0 , 9 5
1 ,4
1 ,3
1 ,2
VD _1
1 ,1
1 ,0
0 ,9
0 ,8
0 ,7
0 ,6
N o rm a l
D y s p h o n ic
C o m p re h e n s i o n
V O IC E S
D i s c ri m i n a t i o n
9
Results
• Other effect (U-Mann-Withney)
Comprehension
Discrimination
Normal
Dysphonic
Normal
Dysphonic
Gender
P=0.52
P=0.64
P=0.95
P=0.32
School
P<0.05
P=0.51
P=0.28
P=0.97
Order
P<0.05
P<0.05
P<0.05
P=0.20
10
Judgment about the dysphonic voice
• Children judgments (88,23%): 98.3% negative
reactions classified in five ways, for example:
– Production: « she does not speak well».
– Acoustic: « the voice is too deep ».
– Pathologic: « she is sick ».
– Emotional: « she is dying ».
– Appearance: « she is a witch ».
11
Discussion
• Disordered voice
additional cognitive
resources in the listener to process speech.
(Rogerson & Dodd, 2005).
• Effect increased in a task of isolated words
– 6 to 12 Y: less flexibility in perceptual task than adults.
(Hazan & Barrett, 2000)
• No gender effect
• No school effect in the dysphonic mode
• Effect of the voices presentation order.
Discrimination task + Dysphonic Voice  increasing difficulties
12
Discussion
• About subjective judgment
– Negative reactions internal referent (Fex, 1992)
– Majority of words in connection with pathology
Dysphonic Voice = diseased state
13
Conclusion
•  Performances for recognition of
spoken words in dysphonic voice.
• Negative impact of dysphonic voice
on children’s skills to treat spoken
language.
• Necessity to prevent voice disorders
among teachers.
• Create specific voice care programs.
14