applied

sciences
Article
Influence of the Nasometric Instrument Structure on
Nasalance Score
Seong Tak Woo 1, *, Young Bin Park 1 , Da Hee Oh 2 and Ji-Wan Ha 3
1 Gyeongbuk Institue of IT Convergence Industry Technology, Gyeongsan-si 38463, Korea
2 Department of Rehabilitation Science, Graduate School, Daegu University, Gyeongsan-si 38453, Korea
3 Department of Speech Pathology, Daegu University, Gyeongsan-si 38453, Korea
* Correspondence: stwoo@gitc.or.kr; Tel.: +82-53-245-5016




Received: 5 May 2019; Accepted: 25 July 2019; Published: 27 July 2019


Abstract: Owing to the development of medical technology, devices to assess resonance (hypernasality
and hyponasality) which result from conditions such as cleft palate and brain injury are being studied.
In general, nasometric instruments are used to support clinical judgments of these disorders. For
conventional separation-type nasometric instruments, there is an acoustic feedback effect between
oral and nasal sounds. Recently, a mask-type nasometric instrument was developed for acoustic
feedback insensitivity, but it has not yet been popularized. In this study, we analyzed the acoustic
characteristics of the mask-type structure according to existing nasometric instruments. We evaluated
the acoustic collection characteristics of the structure through the lumped-element model with an
electromechanical-equivalent circuit. The analysis confirmed that the optimum area of the acoustic
hole was obtained and a closed-type mask structure could be designed. In addition, we obtained
voice data from a healthy control group and examined significant differences in the structure of the
separation-type and mask-type nasometric instruments. Consequently, we confirmed a significant
difference in nasalance according to the acoustic collection structure of the nasometric instruments.

Keywords: nasometric instruments; nasalance; microphone; speech therapy; acoustic feedback

1. Introduction
With the development of medical technology, interest in rehabilitation welfare is increasing and
various rehabilitation devices are being researched and developed [1–5]. Among them, speech therapy
devices are increasingly attracting attention owing to rehabilitation and welfare support for people with
communication disabilities such as hearing impairments. Individuals with cleft palate, and those who
have dysarthria following a brain impairment, may present with hypernasal speech (too much nasal
resonance). Hypernasality results when the velopharyngeal mechanism does not function as it should.
As a result, speech is nasalized and distorted, making it difficult for speech to be understood [6,7].
Nasometric instruments have been utilized by speech therapists to measure the degree of nasalance
in speech [8–11]. For the treatment of resonance disorders, accurate measurements of the generated
sound pressure by the oral and nasal cavity should be collected, and in particular, there should be no
interference between the oral and nasal sounds. However, in the case of separation-type nasometric
instruments (e.g., NAS-1 separator, Glottal Enterprises, Syracuse NY, USA), the signal processing
technique and effect of acoustic feedback on the microphone, which captures the nasal cavity, are
insufficient. Recently, a closed mask-type device (NAS-1 Mask, Glottal Enterprises) was introduced to
minimize the interference effects of oral and nasal sounds.
In this study, we investigated the structural problems of conventional separation plate-type
nasometric instruments and the effect of acoustic feedback between the oral and nasal cavities. In
addition, we investigated the frequency characteristics of the acoustic collection structure simulated

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3040; doi:10.3390/app9153040 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 2 of 13
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3040 2 of 12

addition, we investigated the frequency characteristics of the acoustic collection structure simulated
by an
by an electromechanical-equivalent
electromechanical-equivalent model.
model. Furthermore,
Furthermore, wewe analyzed
analyzed the
the frequency
frequency characteristics,
characteristics,
correlation coefficients, and nasalance values of voice signals collected from aa healthy
correlation coefficients, and nasalance values of voice signals collected from healthy control
control group
group
using nasal and oral microphones in the nasometric instrument structure. Finally, we
using nasal and oral microphones in the nasometric instrument structure. Finally, we compared compared the
characteristics of the closed mask-type nasometric instrument. Through experiments,
the characteristics of the closed mask-type nasometric instrument. Through experiments, the the nasalance
was confirmed
nasalance was to be about 3%
confirmed to 15%
to be abouthigher in the
3% to 15%case of theinmask
higher structure
the case than
of the the separator-type
mask structure than
structure.
the separator-type structure.

2. Conventional Nasometric Instruments

2.1. Characteristics and Structure of the Nasometric Instrument

A nasometric instrument schematic of the conventional separation plate structure for the
measurement
measurement of ofnasalance
nasalanceisisshown
shown in in
Figure 1. Within
Figure the the
1. Within module of the
module ofnasometric instrument,
the nasometric there
instrument,
is an oral
there is anmicrophone for collecting
oral microphone oral sounds
for collecting under
oral the separating
sounds under theplate, and a nasal
separating microphone
plate, and a nasal for
collecting the nasal sounds is located above the separating plate. These microphones collect
microphone for collecting the nasal sounds is located above the separating plate. These microphones acoustic
signals at the same
collect acoustic timeatduring
signals the samespeech
timeand calculate
during speechnasalance, as shown
and calculate in Equation
nasalance, as shown(1) in
[9,11].
Equation
(1) [9,11].
Pressure o f Nasal Sounds
Nasalance[%] = × 100. (1)
[%] = Pressure o f Oral Sounds + Pressure o f Nasal Sounds× 100. (1)
+

Figure 1. Schematic of a conventional nasometric instrument for a patient.

Figure 1. Schematic of a conventional nasometric instrument for a patient.

In this study, we analyzed the characteristics of microphones using the structure of separator-type
In this study, we analyzed the characteristics of microphones using the structure of separator-
nasometric instruments. The most important components of nasometric instruments are the
type nasometric instruments. The most important components of nasometric instruments are the
microphones that collect external sound signals and transmit them to the signal processing device.
microphones that collect external sound signals and transmit them to the signal processing device.
The microphones are required to have excellent sensitivity and a wide frequency band as input
The microphones are required to have excellent sensitivity and a wide frequency band as input
devices [12–14]. Figure 2 is an experimental block diagram for analyzing the microphone characteristics
devices [12–14]. Figure 2 is an experimental block diagram for analyzing the microphone
using the nasometric instrument structure, and a photograph of the experimental environment is
characteristics using the nasometric instrument structure, and a photograph of the experimental
shown in Figure 3.
environment is shown in Figure 3.
In the 0.1 to 10 kHz band, pure tone sounds of 74 and 94 dB SPL (sound pressure level) were
applied to the microphone in the structure of the separation-type nasometric instrument and a reference
microphone (ER10B, Etymotic, Elk Grove Village, USA) at a distance of 1 m from a standard speaker
(FR16WP, Visaton, Haan, Germany). The microphone sensitivity was measured through a signal
generation and acquisition device (NI DAQ-9137, National Instruments, Austin, USA). The oral and
nasal directional microphones showed resonance at about 1 kHz and averaged −38 and −58 dB (0 dB =
1 V/Pa) when applying the 74 and 94 dB SPL, respectively. The frequency characteristics of the two
microphones in the nasometric instrument structure were similar and showed a difference of more
than 4 dB after the 7 kHz band.
Appl.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9,
Sci. 2019, 9, 3040
x 33 of
of 12
13
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 3 of 13

Figure 2. Experimental schematic using the structure of conventional nasometric instruments.

Figure
Figure 2.
2. Experimental
Experimentalschematic
schematicusing
usingthe
thestructure
structure of
of conventional
conventional nasometric
nasometric instruments.
instruments.

-30
-30
= 1V/Pa]
-40
= 1V/Pa]

-40
[0 dB

-50
[0 dB

-50
dB dB

-60
Sensitivity

-60
Sensitivity

Oral directional microphone @ 94 dB SPL (n=20)

-70 Nasal directional microphone
Oral directional microphone @@9494
dBdB SPL
SPL (n=20)
(n=20)
-70 Oral directional
Nasal directional microphone
microphone @@ 94
74 dB
dB SPL
SPL (n=20)
(n=20)
Nasal
Oral directional
directional microphone
microphone @@7474
dBdB SPL
SPL (n=20)
(n=20)
-80 Nasal directional microphone @ 74 dB SPL (n=20)
100 1000 10000
-80
100 1000 [Hz]
Frequency 10000

Frequency [Hz]
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
3. Experimental environment
Figure 3.
Figure environment (a)
(a) picture
picture and
and (b) sensitivity results
results of
of the attached
attached microphone
microphone
Figure 3. Experimental
((Electret
((Electret Condenser environment
CondenserMicrophone,
Microphone, (a) picture
ECM)
ECM) and in
sensitivity
sensitivity(b) sensitivity
inthe
the results
nasometric
nasometric of the attached microphone
instrument.
instrument.
((Electret Condenser Microphone, ECM) sensitivity in the nasometric instrument.
2.2. Acoustic
In the 0.1 Feedback Effectband,
to 10 kHz of Separation-Type
pure tone soundsNasometric
of 74Instrument
and 94 dB SPL (sound pressure level) were
In
applied the 0.1
to case to 10 kHz
the microphone band, pure tone
in thenasometric sounds of 74
structure instrument, and 94 dB SPLnasometric
of the separation-type (sound pressure level) and
instrument werea
In the of a conventional which includes a separator plate, signals
applied to the
reference microphone microphone in the structure of the separation-type nasometric instrument and a
generated by the nasal (ER10B,
cavity can Etymotic, Elk Grove
be collected by the Village, USA) at a This
oral microphone. distance
mayof 1 m from
affect a standard
the reliability in
reference
speaker microphone
(FR16WP, (ER10B,
Visaton, Etymotic,
Haan, Elk Grove Village,
Germany). USA)sensitivity
at a distance of measured
1 m from athrough
standard
the nasalance calculation of Equation (1). In thisThe microphone
study, we analyzed was
the effect of acoustic feedback ona
speaker
Appl. Sci.
signal (FR16WP,
2019, 9, x
generation and Visaton, Haan,
acquisition Germany).
device (NI The microphone sensitivity was measured through
4 of a
13
the separation-type nasometric instrument. TheDAQ-9137,
experimental National
setup andInstruments,
results areAustin,
shown in USA).
FigureThe4.
signal generation and acquisition device (NI DAQ-9137, National Instruments,
oral and nasal directional microphones showed resonance at about 1 kHz and averaged −38 and −58 Austin, USA). The
oral
dB (0anddBnasal directional
= 1 V/Pa) microphones
when applying showed
the 74 and 94resonance at about 1 kHz
dB SPL,20 respectively. Theand averaged
frequency −38 and −58
characteristics
dB (0 dB = 1 V/Pa) when applying the 74 and 94 dB SPL, respectively. The frequency
of the two microphones in the nasometric instrument structure were similar and showed a difference characteristics
of
ofthe
moretwothanmicrophones
4 dB after in
thethe nasometric
7 kHz band. instrument structure were similar and showed a difference
Interference value [dB]

15
of more than 4 dB after the 7 kHz band.
2.2. Acoustic Feedback Effect of Separation-Type Nasometric Instrument
2.2. Acoustic Feedback Effect of Separation-Type Nasometric Instrument
10
In the case of a conventional nasometric instrument, which includes a separator plate, signals
In the by
generated case
theofnasal
a conventional nasometric
cavity can be collected instrument, which includes
by the oral microphone. Thisa may separatoraffect plate, signals
the reliability
generated by the calculation
in the nasalance nasal cavityofcan be collected
Equation (1). Inby the
this oral microphone.
study,
5
we analyzed This the effectmay of affect the reliability
acoustic feedback
in the nasalance calculation of Equation (1). In this study,
on the separation-type nasometric instrument. The experimental we analyzed the
Interference of
setup oral effect of acoustic
to nasal direction @ 74 dB SPL feedback
(n=20)
Interference of nasal and results
to oral direction are
@ 74 dB SPL shown
(n=20) in
on the separation-type
Figure 4. nasometric instrument. The experimental
0 setup and results are shown in
100 1000 10000
Figure 4. Frequency [Hz]

(a) (b)
(a) block diagram and (b) the acoustic feedback effect.
Figure 4. Experimental results: (a)

For analysis of the influence of acoustic feedback, pure tone sounds of 74 dB SPL in the 0.1 to 10
kHz band were applied to the oral and nasal directional microphone through a standard speaker.
In the separator-type structure, the interference effect of the acoustic feedback to the oral to nasal
direction was measured as 12 to 18 dB. In the opposite case, the nasal to oral direction was measured
as 11 to 17 dB. An average interference effect of about 15 dB was observed in the 0.1 to 10 kHz band,
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3040 4 of 12

For analysis of the influence of acoustic feedback, pure tone sounds of 74 dB SPL in the 0.1 to
10 kHz band were applied to the oral and nasal directional microphone through a standard speaker.
In the separator-type structure, the interference effect of the acoustic feedback to the oral to nasal
direction was measured as 12 to 18 dB. In the opposite case, the nasal to oral direction was measured as
11 to 17 dB. An average interference effect of about 15 dB was observed in the 0.1 to 10 kHz band, and it
showed a somewhat higher characteristic above the 2 kHz band. The influence of acoustic feedback has
been mentioned in previous studies. Gildersleeve-Neumann and Dalston noted that a separation-type
nasometric instrument has a sound-separation characteristic of approximately 25 dB [15]. Although
the difference of 25 dB from the previous study is about 7–14 dB, it is indirectly known that these
interference values can also have a considerable effect. This effect produces an undesirable value for
the actual patient’s nasalance calculation.

2.3. Lumped-Element Model for Closed Mask-Type Nasometric Instrument

Recently, a closed mask-type nasometric instrument was implemented to minimize the influence of
the mentioned acoustic feedback. However, its utilization is low. Speech therapists in the field still rely
on subjective judgment using simple instruments. In some cases, a separator-type nasometric instrument
is used intermittently. In practice, there are many opinions about the theoretical considerations and
effects of the acoustic feedback brought about by the structure of the nasometric instrument.
In this study, the frequency characteristics of the mask-type nasometric instrument were analyzed
through the electromechanical-equivalent model. A mask containing an acoustic hole was attached to
the face surface. In this case, the attached mask could be attached to a Helmholtz resonator having a
closed volume and a short tube.
Generally, the Helmholtz resonator demonstrates low-pass-filter characteristics when the sizes of
the closed volume and the short entrance tube are smaller than the applied acoustic wavelength [16].
Figure 5 shows the physical structure, mechanical model, and equivalent circuit corresponding to the
Helmholtz
Appl. Sci. 2019,resonator.
9, x This can be applied to the mask-type nasometric instrument. 5 of 13

(a) (b) (c)

Schematic of
Figure 5. (a) Schematic of Helmholtz
Helmholtz resonator,
resonator, (b) mechanical model of Helmholtz
Helmholtz resonator,
resonator, and (c)
equivalent circuit
circuit corresponding
corresponding to
to the
the Helmholtz
Helmholtz resonator.
resonator.

The
The Helmholtz
Helmholtzresonator
resonatorstructure in Figure
structure 5a can
in Figure 5a be represented
can by a single-degree-of-freedom
be represented by a single-degree-of-
resonance system, as shown in Figure 5b. When a driving force of Fcosωt is
freedom resonance system, as shown in Figure 5b. When a driving force of Fcosωt applied toisthe center to
applied of the
the
resonator, the equation of motion is expressed by Equation (2).
center of the resonator, the equation of motion is expressed by Equation (2).

d2 x + dx + x = cos t. (2)
mM + rM + sM x = F cos ωt. (2)
dt2 dt
Here, if the variable x is changed to the speed v = dx/dt, Equation (3) is obtained.
Here, if the variable x is changed to the speed v = dx/dt, Equation (3) is obtained.

dv + + Z = cos t. (3)
mM + rM v + sM vdt = F cos ωt. (3)
dt
The single-degree-of-freedom resonance system in Figure 5b is expressed as an electrical
equivalent circuit, as shown in Figure 5c. The equation for the current I in the series resonant circuit
is shown in Equation (4).
1
+ = cos t. (4)
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3040 5 of 12

The single-degree-of-freedom resonance system in Figure 5b is expressed as an electrical equivalent

circuit, as shown in Figure 5c. The equation for the current I in the series resonant circuit is shown in
Equation (4). Z
di 1
L + Ri idt = E cos ωt. (4)
dt C
By comparing Equations (3) and (4), we have the force F, velocity υ corresponding to the equivalent
circuit voltage E, current I, which corresponds to the sound pressure P, and volume velocity µ of the
acoustic system. Furthermore, the mass mM , resistance rM , and stiffness sM correspond to L, R, and 1/C
of the electrical circuit, respectively [17–20]. The corresponding physical quantities of electrical and
mechanical systems are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Correspondence relationship between a mechanical and electrical system.

Electrical Mechanical
Voltage, E [V] Force, F [N]
Current, I [A] Velocity υ [m/s]
Resistance, R [Ω] Viscous Damping Factor, C [N·s/m]
Inductance, L [H] Mass, M [kg]
Reciprocal of Capacitance, C − 1 [F] Stiffness, K [N/m]

Here, the velocity υ of the mechanical system is expressed by Equation (5).

P P
v=  sM
 = [m/sec]. (5)
rM + j ωmM − zM
ω

ZM represents the mechanical impedance of the vibration system. The frequency f 0 at which the
reactance part of the mechanical impedance becomes zero is expressed by the following (Equation (6)).
r r
1 sM c A
f0 = = . (6)
2π mM 2π Vl

It is the same as the series resonance characteristics of the equivalent circuit in which the resonance
occurs at f 0 and the speed and amplitude become maximum. Therefore, the sound pressure Ph in the
volume is expressed in Equation (7).

sM u P
Ph = = mM
 rM
. (7)
jω 1 − ω aM + jω sM
2

Ph corresponds to the voltage of the capacitance C corresponding to E = I/jωC of the equivalent

circuit. In addition, the parameters of the mechanical model can be expressed as a spring constant,
mass, and the resistance of air, as shown in Equation (8).

ρA2 c2 ρcA2
Mass, mM = ρAl, Spring, sM = , Resistance, rM = . (8)
V V

ρ is the density of air (1.2 kg/m2 ), A is the area of the acoustic hole, l is the height of the acoustic
hole (2 mm), c is the speed of air (343 m/s), and V is the volume of the closed cavity (approximately
15 cm3 ). In this study, a frequency characteristic simulation is performed based on the structure of the
actual mask-type nasometric instrument. The silicon mask is similar to the structure of a Helmholtz
resonator, which includes a mesh-shaped acoustic hole. A simulation of the equivalent circuit was
performed using a multi-sim program, and the frequency characteristics were analyzed according to
the variation in acoustic holes. The parameters and resonant frequency characteristics for the analysis
are shown in Table 2 and Figure 6.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3040 6 of 12

Table 2. Simulation parameters and calculation frequency according to the acoustic hole size.

Effective Area of Mass of Air, mM Stiffness of Air, 1/sM Resistance of Air, rM Calculation
Acoustic Hole (Electrical, L) (Electrical, C−1 ) (Electrical, R) Frequency
0.0672 µg 13.5520 N/m 0.0002 Ns/m
0.28 cm2 (0.0672 µH) (13.5520 F) (0.0002 Ω)
166 Hz

0.4824 µg 0.2629 N/m 0.0110 Ns/m

3.14 cm2 (0.4824 µH) (0.2629 F) (0.0110 Ω)
447 Hz

0.7536 µg 0.1077 N/m 0.0270 Ns/m

4.52 cm2 (0.7536 µH) (0.1077 F) (0.0270 Ω)
558 Hz

1.4760 µg 0.0280 N/m 0.1037 Ns/m

6.15 cm2 (1.4760 µH) (0.0280 F) (0.1037 Ω)
782 Hz

3.0144 µg 0.0067 N/m 0.4328 Ns/m

12.56 cm2 (3.0144 µH) (0.0067 F) (0.4328 Ω)
1117 Hz
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 7 of 13

Figure 6. Simulation results for resonant frequency characteristics according

Figure 6. according to
to the equivalent circuit.
circuit.

From theCharacteristics
3. Nasalance simulation results, it can be
According to expected that of
the Structure thethe
mask-type
Nasometricnasometric instrument will
Instrument
exhibit a low-pass filter-type acoustic characteristic having a resonance at about 558 Hz. Furthermore,
the
3.1.smaller
Clinicalthe area of the
Experiments foracoustic hole, the
the Nasalance lower the resonant frequency. However, ventilation for air
Evaluation
circulation is inevitable for application to the actual mask structure of the nasometric instrument.
To analyze the characteristics according to the acoustic collection structure of the nasometric
instrument,
3. Nasalance frequency characteristics,
Characteristics according tocorrelation
the Structurecoefficients, and nasalance
of the Nasometric according to the
Instrument
articulation of a healthy control group were analyzed using the separator plate-type and mask-type
3.1. Clinical instruments.
nasometric Experiments forThethehealthy
Nasalance Evaluation
control group consisted of three males, ranging in age from 30
to 35Toyears (meanthe
analyze agecharacteristics
33.0 years), and three females
according to theranging
acousticincollection
age from 33 to 35 years
structure (mean
of the age 34.0
nasometric
years). There was no disease at all.
instrument, frequency characteristics, correlation coefficients, and nasalance according to the
The control
articulation group uttered
of a healthy control an extended
group low vowel
were analyzed /a/ and
using the the nasal words
separator /mama/
plate-type and and /mimi/
mask-type
nasometric instruments. The healthy control group consisted of three males, ranging in age from were
into the oral and nasal microphones of the nasometric instrument. The measured voice signals 30 to
recorded
35 via an
years (mean ageaudio moduleand
33.0 years), (M-track, M-Audio,
three females Cumberland,
ranging in age fromUSA)
33 to and passed
35 years (meanto age
a signal
34.0
generation and acquisition device.
years). There was no disease at all. An experimental block diagram and photographs for the analysis
of theThe
nasalance
control characteristics
group uttered according
an extended to the
lownasometric
vowel /a/ instrument structure
and the nasal words are shown
/mama/ in /mimi/
and Figure
7.
into the oral and nasal microphones of the nasometric instrument. The measured voice signals were
recorded via an audio module (M-track, M-Audio, Cumberland, USA) and passed to a signal generation
and acquisition device. An experimental block diagram and photographs for the analysis of the
nasalance characteristics according to the nasometric instrument structure are shown in Figure 7.
 The control group uttered an extended low vowel /a/ and the nasal words /mama/ and /mimi/
into the oral and nasal microphones of the nasometric instrument. The measured voice signals were
recorded via an audio module (M-track, M-Audio, Cumberland, USA) and passed to a signal
generation and acquisition device. An experimental block diagram and photographs for the analysis
of theSci.
Appl. nasalance characteristics according to the nasometric instrument structure are shown in Figure
2019, 9, 3040 7 of 12
7.

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 8 of 13

(a)

(b)
(a)Experimental
Figure7.7.(a)
Figure Experimental schematic
schematic and (b) environment
environmentpicture
pictureusing
usingthe
thenasometric
nasometricinstruments of
instruments
the
of separation-type
the separation-typestructure and
structure mask-type
and mask-typestructure.
structure.

3.2.Experimental
3.2. ExperimentalResults
Results
The frequency
The frequency characteristics
characteristicsofof measured
measured voice signals
voice fromfrom
signals the separate plate- and
the separate mask-structure
plate- and mask-
nasometric instruments were analyzed using the MATLAB program.
structure nasometric instruments were analyzed using the MATLAB program. The analysis The analysis results areresults
shown
in Figures
are shown in 8 and 9. Figures
Figures 8 and 89.and 9 are 8the
Figures andfrequency
9 are thecharacteristics for /a/,
for the emitted
frequency characteristics the /mama/,
emitted and
/a/,
/mimi/
/mama/, and /mimi/ sounds of males and females, respectively. The measured voice signaland
sounds of males and females, respectively. The measured voice signal (Figures 8d–f 9d–f)
(Figure
through
8d–f and the mask-type
Figure nasometric
9d–f) through instrument nasometric
the mask-type was suppressed in the range
instrument above 500 Hz
was suppressed relative
in the rangeto
the measured voice signal (Figures 8a–c and 9a–c) through the separation-type
above 500 Hz relative to the measured voice signal (Figure 8a–c and Figure 9a–c) through the nasometric instrument.
This result nasometric
separation-type reflects the frequency
instrument. filter characteristics of the mask-type structure in the nasometric
instrument and isreflects
This result similar the
to the simulatedfilter
frequency resultcharacteristics
based on the electrical-mechanical-equivalent
of the mask-type structure in circuit.
the
It can be observed that it is less sensitive to the influence of acoustic feedback
nasometric instrument and is similar to the simulated result based on the electrical-mechanical- than the separation
plate type.circuit. It can be observed that it is less sensitive to the influence of acoustic feedback than
equivalent
In addition,
the separation thetype.
plate correlation coefficient between the collected speech signals through the separation
plate-type and mask-type nasometric instruments is expressed by Equation (9). In general, the
correlation coefficient can be calculated using the sample mean x and y, and standard deviation of
the two signals x and y [4,12], where x and y are the voice signals measured through a microphone
in the nasal and oral directions, respectively. Correlation coefficients were analyzed using the two
measured vocal signals through the oral and nasal microphones when speaking the same word. Thus,
these values are used to show the similarity of voice data in the nasal and oral directions measured by
the microphone in the separation and mask structure.
Pn
i = 1 ( xi
− x)( yi − y)
Correlation coe f f icient = q (9)
Pn 2 Pn 2
i=1 (xi − x) i=1 ( yi − y)

(a) (b) (c)

 Figure 7. (a) Experimental schematic and (b) environment picture using the nasometric instruments
of the separation-type structure and mask-type structure.

3.2. Experimental Results

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3040 8 of 12
The frequency characteristics of measured voice signals from the separate plate- and mask-
structure nasometric instruments were analyzed using the MATLAB program. The analysis results
are shown in Figures
The nasalance of8the
and 9. Figures
healthy control8 and 9 are
group the frequency
using characteristics
the two nasometric for the structures
instrument emitted /a/,
is
/mama/,
expressedandas /mimi/
Equation sounds ofwhich
(10), in males tand
1 andfemales,
t2 are respectively.
the lengths of The
the measured
measured voice
vocal signal
signals (Figure
through
8d–f andand
the oral Figure
nasal9d–f) through the
microphones, mask-type nasometric instrument was suppressed in the range
respectively.
above 500 Hz relative to the measured voice signal (Figure 8a–c and Figure 9a–c) through the
Pt1
separation-type nasometric instrument. n=1 Nasal
Nasalance [%] = Pt1 × 100 (10)
This result reflects the frequency filter characteristics
Pt2 of the mask-type structure in the
n=1 Nasal + n=1 Oral
nasometric instrument and is similar to the simulated result based on the electrical-mechanical-
The calculated
equivalent circuit. Itcorrelation coefficients
can be observed that itand nasalance
is less sensitiveresults
to theby Equations
influence (9) and (10)
of acoustic are shown
feedback than
in Table
the 3.
separation plate type.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure
Figure 8.
8. Measured
Measured spectrum
spectrumof ofvocal
vocalsignal
signalofofmales
malesusing
usingthe
theseparation-type
separation-typestructure
structurefor
for(a) /a/,
(a)/a/,
(b) /mama/, and (c) /mimi/,
(b) /mama/, /mimi/, and measured spectrum
spectrum of vocal signal of males using
using the mask-type
mask-type
structure for (d) /a/, (e) /mama/, and (f) /mimi/ (the red line is the microphone output in the oral direction
and the blue line is the microphone output in the nasal direction).

In general, the vowel extension /a/ was less than 20% in nasalance, and the nasal words /mama/,
/mimi/ were about 40% and 60% to 80%, respectively. In the case of /a/, there was no consonant
component affecting the nasalance, and /mama/ and /mimi/ were somewhat higher as a standard nasal
term. The reason why the nasalance of /mama/ and /mimi/ is different is that the /a/ component of the
/mama/ word is a posterior low vowel characteristic and the tip of tongue is located at the lower side.
Furthermore, the /i/ component of the /mimi/ word has anterior high vowel characteristics, which is
expected to be the result of a mechanism that enhances the separation of the nasal and oral cavity [21].
The differences in the calculated index through the separation plate-type and mask-type nasometric
instruments are shown in Figure 10.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 9 of 13

structure
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9,for
3040(d) /a/, (e) /mama/, and (f) /mimi/ (the red line is the microphone output in the oral9 of 12
direction and the blue line is the microphone output in the nasal direction).

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 9. Measured
Measured spectrum
spectrum of of vocal
vocal signal
signal of
offemales
females using
usingthe
theseparation-type
separation-typestructure
structure for
for(a) /a/,
(a)/a/,
(b) /mama/,
/mama/, and (c) /mimi/,
/mimi/, and measured spectrum of vocal signal of females using the mask-type
structure for (d)/a/,
for(d) /a/, /mama/,
(e)(e) /mama/, (f) /mimi/
andand (f) /mimi/ (theline
(the red redisline is the microphone
the microphone output
output in in direction
the oral the oral
and the blue
direction andline
the is theline
blue microphone output in output
is the microphone the nasalin direction).
the nasal direction).

Table 3. Correlation coefficients and nasalance results of the healthy control group.
In addition, the correlation coefficient between the collected speech signals through the
separation plate-type and mask-type nasometric
/a/ instruments/mama/
is expressed by Equation (9). In general,
/mimi/
the correlation coefficient can be
Healthy Control Group calculated using the sample
Nasalance Nasalance
mean x and y, Nasalance
and standard deviation
of the two signals x and y [4,12], where Corr. Corr. Corr.
[%] x and y are the voice [%] signals measured through
[%] a microphone
in the nasal and oral directions, 19.73
Male1 respectively. Correlation
0.4299 coefficients
40.40 were analyzed
0.3530 66.45 using the two
0.7659
measured vocal signalsMale2through the oral and0.2532
17.81 nasal microphones
31.47 when speaking the
0.3825 same word.
56.15 Thus,
0.6702
Using the
these values are used to show the
Male3 similarity0.2687
16.38 of voice data in the nasal
34.62 and oral 62.24
0.3634 directions measured
0.6292
separation
by the microphoneFemale1
structure
18.09and mask
in the separation 0.2624
structure.43.26 0.2272 79.94 0.7645
Female2 7.74 0.1927 40.80 0.2379 68.67 0.8664
Female3 20.18 0.3024 ∑ 35.27
( − )(0.3724
− ) 69.22 0.7655
= (9)
Male1 19.78 0.7725 ∑ 32.22
( − ) ∑ 0.4669 ( − ) 51.73 0.5594
Male2 14.65 0.7760 40.63 0.5030 61.83 0.7622
Using the
The nasalance of the healthy control group
Male3 13.08 0.6640 using the
30.62two nasometric
0.5680 instrument
53.19 structures
0.5639 is
maskas Equation (10), in which t1 and t2 are the lengths of the measured vocal signals through
expressed Female1 17.99 0.5990 32.19 0.4490 68.02 0.7886
structure
the oral and nasal microphones,
Female2 respectively.
10.54 0.4675 32.50 0.3755 60.57 0.8097
Female3 12.42 0.7451 30.15 0.5369 57.28 0.8772
∑
[%] = × 100 (10)
∑ + ∑
In the case of the male mean nasalance for /a/, /mama/, and /mimi/, it was measured about 5% to
The
10% lower calculated
than thatcorrelation coefficients
of the mask-type and nasalance
nasometric results
instrument. by Equations
In the (9) and
case of female (10)
mean are shown
nasalance, it
in Table 3.
was also measured as low as 3% to 15%.
 of the /mama/ word is a posterior low vowel characteristic and the tip of tongue is located at the
lower side. Furthermore, the /i/ component of the /mimi/ word has anterior high vowel
characteristics, which is expected to be the result of a mechanism that enhances the separation of the
nasal and oral cavity [21]. The differences in the calculated index through the separation plate-type
and mask-type nasometric instruments are shown in Figure 10.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3040 10 of 12

100 100
Using the separation structure_Maleaverage Using the separation structure_Femaleaverage
Using the mask structure_Maleaverage Using the mask structure_Femaleaverage
80 80
Nasalance [%]

Nasalance [%]
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
/a/ /mama/ /mimi/ /a/ /mama/ /mimi/
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 11 of 13
Word Word

(a) (b)
1.0 1.0
Using the Separation structure_Maleaverage Using the separation structure_Femaleaverage
Using the mask structure_Maleaverage Using the mask structure_Femaleaverage
0.8 0.8
Correlation coefficirnt

0.6 Correlation coefficirnt 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
/a/ /mama/ /mimi/ /a/ /mama/ /mimi/
Word Word
(c) (d)
Figure10.
Figure 10. Calculated
Calculated nasalance
nasalance results
results comparison
comparison for
for (a)
(a) males
males and
and (b)
(b)females,
females,and
andcorrelation
correlation
coefficientresults
coefficient resultscomparison
comparisonfor
for(c)
(c)males
malesand
and(d)
(d)females.
females.

In
Inthe
thecase
caseof ofthe
themale
malemean
mean correlation
nasalance for coefficient between
/a/, /mama/, oral anditnasal
and /mimi/, speech signals,
was measured aboutthe5%
mask type was found to be about 0.20 to 0.45 (/a/, /mama/) higher than that of
to 10% lower than that of the mask-type nasometric instrument. In the case of female mean nasalance, the separation plate type.
In
it the
wascase
alsoof /mimi/ words,
measured as lowthe
as result
3% to was 15%.slightly higher (0.01). The average correlation coefficient of
the female
In thewas
casealso found
of the maletomean
be about 0.2 to 0.38
correlation for /a/ and
coefficient /mama/
between sounds;
oral /mimi/
and nasal words
speech showed
signals, the
results about 0.02 higher.
mask type was found to be about 0.20 to 0.45 (/a/, /mama/) higher than that of the separation plate
type.Referring
In the caseto Figure 10, aswords,
of /mimi/ the correlation
the resultcoefficient
was slightlyincreases,
higherthe nasalance
(0.01). tends tocorrelation
The average decrease,
which means that the nasalance is lower as the signals of the oral and nasal
coefficient of the female was also found to be about 0.2 to 0.38 for /a/ and /mama/ sounds; /mimi/ sounds are similar. The
design
words of the mask-type
showed results about nasometric
0.02 higher. instrument to minimize the influence of acoustic feedback is
less affected
Referringby totheFigure
interference than
10, as the the nasometric
correlation instrument
coefficient of the
increases, theseparator
nasalancetype andtoexhibits
tends decrease,a
relatively high correlation between the oral and nasal signals.
which means that the nasalance is lower as the signals of the oral and nasal sounds are similar. The
Theofhigher
design the correlation,
the mask-type the lower
nasometric the nasalance
instrument of thethe
to minimize healthy control
influence group. The
of acoustic mask-type
feedback is less
nasometric
affected byinstrument results are
the interference than about
the 5% to 15% lower
nasometric than the of
instrument separator-type
the separator nasometric
type andinstrument
exhibits a
results.
relativelyThis
highiscorrelation
because the mask the
between structure,
oral andbasednasalon the low-pass filter, suppresses frequency
signals.
components above
The higher theabout 500 Hz the
correlation, of the measured
lower speech signal,
the nasalance and it iscontrol
of the healthy relatively similar
group. Thetomask-type
the nasal
signal component in the low-frequency band.
nasometric instrument results are about 5% to 15% lower than the separator-type nasometric
instrument results. This is because the mask structure, based on the low-pass filter, suppresses
4. Discussion and Conclusions
frequency components above about 500 Hz of the measured speech signal, and it is relatively similar
to the
Innasal signalwe
this study, component
analyzed in thethe low-frequency
characteristics of band.
a conventional nasometric instrument structure
for patients with a resonance disorder. Acoustic collection characteristics were measured with an
4. Discussion
attached and Conclusions
commercial microphone (Electret Condenser Microphone, ECM) in the nasometric instrument
structure
In this study, wetone
when pure sounds
analyzed the ofcharacteristics
74 and 94 dB SPL were applied.nasometric
of a conventional Furthermore, we investigated
instrument structure
the
for patients with a resonance disorder. Acoustic collection characteristics were measuredthe
structural problems of the separation plate-type nasometric instrument. We confirmed effect
with an
attached commercial microphone (Electret Condenser Microphone, ECM) in the nasometric
instrument structure when pure tone sounds of 74 and 94 dB SPL were applied. Furthermore, we
investigated the structural problems of the separation plate-type nasometric instrument. We
confirmed the effect of acoustic feedback on the separation plate structure when applying the 74 dB
SPL. In addition, the experimental results showed interference effects with values of about 11 to 18
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3040 11 of 12

of acoustic feedback on the separation plate structure when applying the 74 dB SPL. In addition,
the experimental results showed interference effects with values of about 11 to 18 dB. This acoustic
feedback effect can cause problems in the accurate nasalance calculation of nasometric instruments.
In addition, we simulated the frequency characteristics of the mask-type nasometric instrument
with an electrical-mechanical-equivalent model, which is designed to minimize the effects of acoustic
feedback. Simulation results show that the frequency properties were low-pass filter characteristics at
518 Hz due to the mask structure in the nasometric instrument.
In addition, the acoustic collection characteristics of the conventional separation-type and
mask-type nasometric instruments were tested on a healthy control group and the results were
analyzed. In the case of the mask type, the similarity of the frequency characteristics to those of the
simulation results was confirmed.
Voice data were obtained through the healthy control group using the vowel extension /a/ and the
standard nasal words /mama/ and /mimi/. The frequency suppression characteristics according to the
acoustic collection structure were confirmed through frequency domain analysis. The closed structure
mask type exhibited a low-pass filter characteristic based on a band of about 500 Hz. Consequently, the
mask-type structure had a higher correlation between the oral and nasal sounds than the separation
plate type and the nasalance was lowered.
We also confirmed that the nasalance was different depending on the location of the tongue when
the healthy control group spoke the word. In the case of /mama/ and /mimi/, the nasalance was different
owing to the structure of the tongue of the posterior low vowel /a/ and the high vowel /i/ component of
the anterior type. In this regard, the results of this study can be referred to the research of nasalance
values according to the position of the tongue.

Author Contributions: Study design, measurements, data analysis, and discussion by S.T.W., Y.B.P., D.H.O.,
J.-W.H., all authors have approved the submitted manuscript, the manuscript has not been submitted elsewhere
nor published.
Funding: This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (Nos. 2018R1D1A1B07051072 and
2019S1A5A2A03054267) and the Daegu-Gyeongbuk Medical Innovation Foundation funded by the Gyeongsan-si.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Joseph, C.S.; Edie, R.H. Voice Theraphy: Clinical Case Studies, 4th ed.; Plural Publishing: San Diego, CA, USA,
2019; pp. 13–31.
2. Borden, D.R.; Borden, S.C. The Voice and Voice Theraphy, 1st ed.; Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2000;
pp. 165–172.
3. Kang, J.E. The Relationship between Speaker Factors and Speech Intelligibility of Children with Cleft Palate.
Commun. Sci. Disord. 2009, 14, 338–348.
4. Lee, J.N.; Lee, G.H.; Na, S.D.; Seong, G.W.; Cho, J.H.; Kim, M.N. Noise Cancellation Algorithm of Bone
Conduction Speech Signal using Feature of Noise in Separated Band. J. Korea Multimed. Soc. 2016, 19,
128–137. [CrossRef]
5. Shin, H.G. Assessment and Treatment of the Cleft Palate Speech Disorder by Use of the Nasometer. Korean
Cleft Lip Assoc. 2008, 11, 1–11.
6. Lim, S.E. Nasalance Scores of 5 to 7-Year-Old Korean Children. J. Korean Acad. Speech Lang. Pathol. Audiol.
2005, 10, 71–88.
7. Kang, S.G. Study on Nasalance of in Five-age Children. J. Korean Soc. Spec. Educ. 2000, 1, 12–22.
8. Kang, S.J.; Choi, H.J. Effect of Percentage of Correct Consonants and Nasalance Score on the Speech
Intelligibility and Acceptability in Adults with Dysarthria. J. Rehabil. Int. Korea 2016, 20, 67–82.
9. Ziade, G.; Kasti, M.; Sarieddine, D. Clinical Application of Nasometry in Patients with Nasal Obstruction.
Ear Nose Throat J. 2017, 96, 1–4. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Shin, H.S. Treatment Device for Voice Disorders. Patents Korea (No. 10-1114920). Available online:
https://patents.google.com/patent/KR101114920B1/ko (accessed on 10 October 2018).
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3040 12 of 12

11. Watterson, T.; Lewis, K.; Brancamp, T. Comparison of Nasalance Scores Obtained with the Nasometer 6200
and the Nasometer II 6400. Cleft Palate-Craniofac. J. 2005, 42, 574–579. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Woo, S.T.; Han, J.H.; Lee, J.H.; Seong, K.W.; Cho, J.H.; Choi, M.H. Realization of a High Sensitivity Microphone
for a Hearing Aid using a Graphene−PMMA Laminated Diaphragm. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2017, 9,
1237–1246. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Eargle, J. The Microphone Book; Taylor and Francis Group: Abingdon, UK, 2005; pp. 102–154.
14. Omori, T.; Usui, T.; Watabe, K.; Nguyen, M.D.; Matsumoto, K.; Shimoyama, I. Elastic Wave Mearsurement
using a MEMS AE Sensor. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 737. [CrossRef]
15. Gildersleeve-Neumann, C.E.; Dalston, R.M. Nasalance Scores in Noncleft Individuals: Why Not Zero? Cleft
Palate-Craniofac. J. 2001, 38, 106–111. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Rokhlin, V. Diagonal Forms of Translation Operators for the Helmholtz Equation in Three Dimensions. Appl.
Comput. Harmon. Anal. 1993, 1, 82–93. [CrossRef]
17. Bai, M.R.; Chen, R.L.; Wang, C.J. Electroacoustic Analysis of an Electret Loudspeaker using Combined
Finite-element and Lumped-parameter Models. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2009, 125, 3632–3640. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
18. Lohfink, A.; Eccardt, P.C. Linear and Nonlinear Equivalent Circuit Modeling of CMUTs. IEEE Trans. Ultrason.
Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 2005, 52, 2163–2172. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Mohamad, N.; Iovenitti, P.; Vinay, T. Modelling and Optimisation of a Spring-supported Diaphragm
Capacitive MEMS Microphone. Sci. Res. 2010, 2, 762–770. [CrossRef]
20. Tilmans, H.A.C. Equivalent Circuit Representation of Electromechanical Transducer II. Distributed-Parameter
Systems. J. Micromech. Microeng. 1996, 7, 157–176. [CrossRef]
21. Raphael, L.J. Speech Science Primer; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2013; pp. 58–77.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).