These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
22. Perception of pre-vocalic and post-vocalic consonants produced by tracheoesophageal speakers. Doyle PC; Haaf RG J Otolaryngol; 1989 Dec; 18(7):350-3. PubMed ID: 2593219 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Reaction times of normal listeners to laryngeal, alaryngeal, and synthetic speech. Evitts PM; Searl J J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2006 Dec; 49(6):1380-90. PubMed ID: 17197503 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Effects of discourse context on the intelligibility of synthesized speech for young adult and older adult listeners: applications for AAC. Drager KD; Reichle JE J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2001 Oct; 44(5):1052-7. PubMed ID: 11708526 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Ratings of intelligibility of esophageal and tracheoesophageal speech. Cullinan WL; Brown CS; Blalock PD J Commun Disord; 1986 Jun; 19(3):185-95. PubMed ID: 3722432 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Intelligibility of tracheoesophageal speech among naive listeners. Smith LF; Calhoun KH South Med J; 1994 Mar; 87(3):333-5. PubMed ID: 8134853 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Speech intelligibility in tone language (Chinese) laryngectomy speakers. Yiu EM; van Hasselt CA; Williams SR; Woo JK Eur J Disord Commun; 1994; 29(4):339-47. PubMed ID: 7647385 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Voice intelligibility in patients who have undergone laryngectomies. Miralles JL; Cervera T J Speech Hear Res; 1995 Jun; 38(3):564-71. PubMed ID: 7674648 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Laryngectomees' and nonlaryngectomees' perceptions of three methods of alaryngeal voicing. Watson JB; Williams SE J Commun Disord; 1987 Aug; 20(4):295-304. PubMed ID: 3624525 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Differences in speaking proficiencies in three laryngectomee groups. Williams SE; Watson JB Arch Otolaryngol; 1985 Apr; 111(4):216-9. PubMed ID: 3977752 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. A comparison of speech intelligibility between esophageal and normal speakers via three modes of presentation. Hubbard DJ; Kushner D J Speech Hear Res; 1980 Dec; 23(4):909-16. PubMed ID: 6160319 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The spouse as facilitator for esophageal speech: a research perspective. Gibbs HW; Achterberg-Lawlis J J Surg Oncol; 1979; 11(2):89-94. PubMed ID: 439903 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The assessment of alaryngeal speech. Sanderson RJ; Anderson SJ; Denholm S; Kerr AI Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci; 1993 Jun; 18(3):181-3. PubMed ID: 8365004 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Intelligibility of dysarthric speech: perceptions of speakers and listeners. Walshe M; Miller N; Leahy M; Murray A Int J Lang Commun Disord; 2008; 43(6):633-48. PubMed ID: 18608608 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. An acoustic study of Cantonese alaryngeal speech in different speaking conditions. Cox SR; Huang T; Chen WR; Ng ML J Acoust Soc Am; 2023 May; 153(5):2973. PubMed ID: 37212513 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]