Revista CEFAC
https://revistacefac.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/1982-0216/20262827725
Revista CEFAC
Original Articles

Spontaneous speech of oral deaf children using multiparametric acoustic analysis: Fundamental frequency derivatives

Fala espontânea de crianças surdas oralizadas com medidas acústicas multiparamétricas: derivadas de frequência fundamental

Aline Neves Pessoa Almeida; Daniela Gil; Carolina Giménez de Almeida; Marisa Frasson de Azevedo

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/20262827725 Revista CEFAC, vol.28, n2, e7725, 2026
PDF English
PDF Português
SciELO
Downloads: 2
Views: 805

Abstract

Purpose: to determine measures derived from the fundamental frequency (f₀) of spontaneous speech of oral deaf children, described according to age, sex, and the type of hearing technology they used.

Methods: a prospective cross-sectional study with 25 oral deaf children, aged 7 months to 10 years and 10 months, with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Acoustic analysis was performed using a multiparametric measurement script: measures derived from f₀: mean, median, standard deviation (SD), minimum, and maximum values. Descriptive statistical procedures with the Mann-Whitney test were applied to observe effects per group of sex, age, and type of hearing technology. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.

Results: f₀ values in Hertz (mean; median; SD; minimum; maximum) were as follows: 7m-3y11m (345.4; 363; 61.17; 267.00; 424.20); 4y-5y11m (328.2; 326.4; 32.77; 285; 385.80); 6y-7y11m (289.2; 270.6; 47.25; 257.4; 358.2); 8y-10y10m (270.6; 276.6; 14.32; 245.6; 280.2). There was no significant difference between sex and the type of technology. Values derived from f₀ differed significantly between age groups; values decreased as age increased.

Conclusion: values derived from f₀ of spontaneous speech (mean, median, SD, minimum, and maximum) differed statistically between age groups, decreasing with increasing age.

Keywords

Speech Acoustics; Speech Therapy; Child; Hearing Loss; Hearing Aids; Cochlear Implantation

Resumo

Objetivo: determinar medidas derivadas da frequência fundamental (f₀) de fala espontânea de crianças surdas oralizadas, descritas conforme idade, sexo e tipo de tecnologia auditiva utilizada.

Métodos: estudo transversal e prospectivo, com 25 crianças surdas oralizadas, entre 7 meses e 10 anos e 10 meses com perda auditiva neurossensorial de grau severo a profundo. A análise acústica foi realizada por meio de um script de medidas multiparamétricas: medidas derivadas de f₀ (média e mediana, desvio padrão-DP, valor mínimo e máximo - Vmín e Vmáx). Procedimentos estatísticos descritivos foram aplicados, com teste de Mann-Whitney para observar efeitos conforme agrupamentos: sexo, idade e tipos de tecnologias auditivas. O valor de significância estatística adotado foi de p ≤ 0,05.

Resultados: valores de f₀ em Hertz (média / mediana/ desvio padrão - DP/ Vmín e Vmáx) foram: 7m-3a11m (345,4 / 363 / 61,17 / 267,00-424,20), 4a-5a11m (328,2 / 326,4 / 32,77 / 285-385,80), 6a-7a11m (289,2 / 270,6 / 47,25 / 257,4-358,2), 8a-10a10m (270,6 / 276,6 / 14,32 / 245,6-280,2). Não houve diferença significativa entre os sexos e os tipos de tecnologia utilizados. Houve diferença significativa nos valores derivados de f₀ quando comparados entre faixas etárias, com redução dos valores com aumento da idade.

Conclusão: valores derivados de f₀ de fala espontânea diferiram com diferença estatística entre faixas etárias, houve diminuição dos valores (média / mediana/ desvio padrão-DP/ Vmín e Vmáx) com o aumento da idade.

Palavras-chave

Acústica da Fala; Fonoterapia; Criança; Perda Auditiva; Auxiliares de Audição; Implante Coclear

Referencias

1. Novaes BCAC, Goffi-Gomez MVS. Reabilitação auditiva: premissas e processos. In: Bento R, Lopes R, editors. Guia prático de otorrinolaringologia e cirurgia de cabeça e pescoço. Volume 2: Otologia. 1st ed. São Paulo: Thieme Revinter; 2024. p. 611-21.

2. Estabrooks W, Morrison HM, MacIver-Lux K. Auditory-verbal therapy: Science, research, and practice. 1st ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2020. ISBN 9781635501340.

3. Frederigue-Lopes NB, Silva JM, Souza FCP, Ricardo MB, de Angelo TCS, Jacob RT de S et al. Guide to the preparation of speech reports for implanted children: Opinion of specialists. CoDAS. 2023;36(1):e20220177. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20232022177pt PMID: 38126422.

4. Azevedo MF, Ventre MLD, Strobilius-Alexandre R, Onoue SS. Habilitação e reabilitação auditiva. In: Azevedo MF, editor. Descomplicando a audiologia infantil. 1st ed. São Paulo: Booktoy; 2024. Chapter 12. p. 314. ISBN: 9788571480889.

5. Camargo Z, Pessoa-Almeida A. Chapter 23: Avaliação acústica da fala na infância. In: Wertzner HF, Mota HB, Keske-Soares M, editors. Transtornos dos sons da fala. 1st ed. São Paulo: Pró-Fono; 2024. p. 221-35.

6. Berti LC, de Assis MF, Cremasco E, Cardoso ACV. Speech production and speech perception in children with speech sound disorder. Clin Linguist Phon. 2022;36(2-3):183-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2021.1948609 PMID: 34279164.

7. Simões-Zenari M, Batista GKS, Pagan-Neves LO, Nemr K, Wertzner HF. Acoustic voice and spectrographic measures in children with the phonological process of devoicing. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;157:111137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2022.111137 PMID 35427996.

8. Katz WF. New horizons in clinical phonetics. In: Katz WF, Assmann PF, editors. The Routledge Handbook of Phonetics. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2019. p. 526-69. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429056253

9. Kent R, Read C. The acoustic analysis of speech. San Diego: Singular Publishing; 1992.

10. Lieberman P. Phonetic features and physiology: A reappraisal. J Phonetics. 1976;4:91-112.

11. Pickett J. The acoustics of speech communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 1999.

12. Lindblom B, Öhman S. Frontiers of speech communication research. London: Academic Press; 1979.

13. Browman CP, Goldstein L. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetics. 1992;49(3-4):155-80.

14. Camargo Z, Marchesan I. Evaluación integrada del habla. In: Susanibar F, editor. Tratado de Evaluación de Motricidade Orofacial y áreas afines. Madrid: EOS; 2014. p. 507-26.

15. Barbosa PA, Madureira S. Manual de fonética acústica experimental: aplicações a dados do português. São Paulo: Cortez Editora; 2015. ISBN 978-85-247-1423-3.

16. Frosolini A, Fantin F, Tundo I, Pessot N, Badin G, Bartolotta P et al. Voice parameters in children with cochlear implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Voice. 2025;39(4):1132.e23-1132.e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2023.01.022 PMID: 36868956.

17. Delgado-Pinheiro EMC, Bonbonati JC, Santos FRD, Fabron EMG. Voice of hearing impaired children and adolescents and hearing peers: Influence of speech auditory perception on vocal production. CoDAS. 2020;32(4):e20180227. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20202018227 PMID: 32756851.

18. de Souza LB, Bevilacqua MC, Brasolotto AG, Coelho AC. Cochlear implanted children present vocal parameters within normal standards. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;76(8):1180-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.04.029 PMID: 22652499.

19. Ubrig MT, Tsuji RK, Weber R, Menezes MHM, Barrichelo VMO, Cunha MGB et al. The influence of auditory feedback and vocal rehabilitation on prelingual hearing-impaired individuals post cochlear implant. J Voice. 2019;33(6):947.e1-947.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.07.004 PMID: 30174224.

20. Medved DMS, Cavalheri LMDR, Coelho AC, Fernandes ACN, Silva EMD, Sampaio ALL. Systematic review of auditory perceptual and acoustic characteristics of the voice of cochlear implant adult users. J Voice. 2021;35(6):934.e7-934.e16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.02.023 PMID: 32247544.

21. Hocevar-Boltezar I, Vatovec J, Gros A. The influence of cochlear implantation on some voice parameters. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2005;69(12):1635-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2005.06.002 PMID:16054872.

22. Jacob RT de S, Monteiro NFG, Molina SV, Bevilacqua MC, Lauris JRP, Moret ALM. Speech perception in children in noisy situation. Arquivos Int Otorrinolaringol. 2011;15(2):163-7. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1809-48722011000200007

23. Barbosa IKL, Behlau M, Lopes LW, Almeida LNA, Nascimento JA do, Almeida AA. Voice and self-regulation: Integrating review of the literature. J Voice. 2022;36(4):499-506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.06.023 PMID 32753295.

24. Costa CC, Leite APD, Madazio G, Behlau M. Auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: Comparing different speech tasks to identify children with and without laryngeal lesions. CoDAS. 2023;35(2):e20210198. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20212021198en PMID 36888744.

25. Viegas F, Viegas D, Baeck HE. Frequency measurement of vowel formants produced by Brazilian children aged between 4 and 8 years. J Voice. 2015;29(3):292-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.08.001 PMID: 25510161.

26. Braga JN, Oliveira DSF, Sampaio TMM. Frequência fundamental da voz de crianças. Rev. CEFAC. 2009;11(1):119-26. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-18462009000100016

27. Torres ALCP, Ribeiro YF, Caprini EC, Dassie-Leite AP, Ribeiro VV. Prevalence of dysphonia in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Voice. 2024;11(4):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2024.01.001 PMID: 12345678.

28. Murray ES, Chao A. The relationships among vocal variability, vocal-articulatory coordination, and dysphonia in children. J Voice. 2023;37(6):969.e43-969.e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.06.008 PMID:34272144. Epub 2021 Jul 14.

29. Hsu HW, Lin CY, Hsiao TY, Wang HW. Multidimensional evaluation of vocal quality in children with cochlear implants: A cross-sectional, case-controlled study. Clin Otolaryngol. 2014;39(1):32-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12138 PMID:24053629.

30. Jafari N, Fouladi MM, Ashayeri H, Faghihzadeh S, Poorsattari R, Daneshi A. Objective voice analysis of pediatric cochlear implant recipients and comparison with hearing aids users and hearing controls. J Voice. 2017;31(4):505.e12-505.e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.10.018 PMID 27865551.

31. de Souza LB, Bevilacqua MC, Brasolotto AG, Coelho AC. Cochlear implanted children present vocal parameters within normal standards. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;76(8):1180-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.04.029 PMID: 22652499.

32. Baudonck ED, Dhooge I, Lierde KY. Objective vocal quality in children using cochlear implants: A multiparameter approach. J Voice. 2011;25(6):683-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2010.05.009 PMID:20810388.

33. Umashankar A, Dhandayutham S, Ramamoorthy S. Frequency characteristics in children using cochlear implant: A comparison with normal hearing peers. J Int Adv Otol. 2021;17(3):393-9. https://doi.org/10.5152/iao.2021.9255 PMID:34501007.

34. Santos MM, Pereira RS, Mendes BCA, Novaes BCAC. Consistency of hearing aid use, speech perception and vocabulary in hearing impaired children. CoDAS. 2024;36(1):e20240123. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20242023001 PMID: 12345678.
 

Submitted date:
05/08/2025

Accepted date:
03/11/2025

69d95668a9539516393b4b84 cefac Articles
1982-0216 (Electrónico) 1516-1846 (Impreso)
Revista CEFAC ©2026 Todos los derechos reservados sobre el contenido de este sitio web. Los artículos siguen sus propias licencias.

Revista CEFAC

Share this page
Page Sections