The mirror test for assessing nasal air emission indicated that slight fogging in certain speech contexts was observed in 6 of 15 subjects. There appeared to be nasal blockage in many of these patients, as 9 of 15 did not have nasal air emission from at least one nostril as would be expected for nasal consonants. See-Scape results indicated that UPPP subjects exhibited some degree of inadequate nasal emission as evidenced by high scores during the counting series of 60-69. Some lower scores were found for the UPPP subjects for counting in the 70s suggesting that they exhibited some degree of nasal resistance compared to the control subjects. The UPPP subjects received ratings from an average of 0.5 to 7.5 during the 90s series. Although some nasal air flow would be expected (controls ratings 0.5-1.0) 14 of 15 UPPP subjects received scores higher than the controls. During the pneumotachograph airflow measurement, 5 of 15 subjects showed slight air emission during the produc­tion of /pn/.


Questionnaire data revealed that the UPPP subjects had severe problems with swallowing, as would be expected, during the week following surgery, but the severity decreased significantly over the following three months (pC.Ol). The most severe variable at one week was swallowing/choking followed by dry­ness, speech, nasal regurgitation and gagging. As noted in Figure 1, all recovery variables decreased significantly (p<.01) over time. Further analysis of variance revealed that most of the change over time occurred during the first month following surgery (p<.01). Nevertheless, even at three months following surgery, the UPPP subjects continued to experience some degree of difficulty with at least one of the recovery variables, swallowing/choking, dryness, nasal regurgitation, gagging, or speech. canadian pharmacy viagra

FIGURE 1. The mean severity

FIGURE 1. The mean severity score for 20 UPPP subjects for all recovery variables at one week, one month, and three months postoperation.

As revealed in Figure 1, the severity of dryness and gagging did not change appreciably from one month to three months postoperatively. In fact, at the time of the study, six months to three years postoperation, many subjects continued to complain about problems with dryness. Dryness problems were not limited to those who had undergone the most recent surgery, but affected some who were three years postoperative.

FIGURE 2. Mean rating by four judges on phonation.

FIGURE 2. Mean rating by four judges on phonation. The higher the rating number, the poorer the judged phonation.

Four subjects reportedly had mild to moderate problems with speech three months postoperation. Subjects complained of difficulty with “tone” of their voice and pitch problems while singing. Others felt their voice was “nasal” and sounded like they had a cold. Seven subjects had mild to moderate nasal regurgitation after three months. They expressed having difficulty drinking from a water fountain and drinking orange juice or water from a glass. Some felt they had to “chew their food better” and “swallow harder” to avoid having food pass through the nose.

The most frequent complaint overall involved oro­pharyngeal dryness. Although dryness had decreased significantly from the first week following surgery, as stated earlier, at three months 15 of 20 subjects continued to have mild to moderate problems with dryness. erectalis

FIGURE 3. Mean rating by four judges

FIGURE 3. Mean rating by four judges on articulation. The higher the rating number, the poorer the judged articulation.

Speech Judgments

The judges were asked to discriminate between each UPPP subject and his or her non-UPPP matched pair. The judges as a group were able to identify 11 of 15 UPPP subjects correctly. A chi-square analysis revealed this to be significant at the .01 level.

FIGURE 4. Mean rating by four judges

FIGURE 4. Mean rating by four judges on nasal reso-nance. The higher the rating number, the poorer the judged nasal resonance.

Figures 2, 3, and 4 show phonation, articulation, and resonance mean scores. Analysis of variance procedures revealed significant differences between the UPPP and non-UPPP groups for phonation and articulation (p<.01). The UPPP group was rated as having poorer speech for phonation and articulation but nasal resonance was not found to discriminate the UPPP from the non-UPPP group. The UPPP group received consistently poorer scores for phonation as shown by the significant value obtained on the median chi square test (p<.01). A discriminant function anal­ysis also showed that phonation was the most influ­ential factor in discriminating between the UPPP and the non-UPPP groups. A negative value was found for resonance in the discriminant function analysis indi­cating that more non-UPPP subjects than UPPP subjects were found to have resonance problems. Cialis Jelly