The Egyptian Journal of Otolaryngology

Table 2 Comparison between the two groups regarding intonation stimulability protocol

From: Objective measurement of prosodic features of speech of hearing-impaired Egyptian children with cochlear implants

	Control “n = 30”	Cases “n = 30”	T-test p-value
rfo
Range	180.00–299.00	175.00–322.00	0.588
Means ± SD	249.40 ± 37.25	254.43 ± 28.50	0.559 NS
rto
Range	3.34–5.55	3.10–5.7	0.680
Means ± SD	4.10 ± 0.66	4.10 ± 0.655	0.413 NS
rfhi
Range	230.00–399.00	267.00–400.00	1.708
Means ± SD	322.93 ± 51.68	341.97 ± 32.44	0.093 NS
rflo
Range	76.10–274.00	72.27–267.00	1.330
Means ± SD	183.37 ± 61.83	161.73 ± 64.23	0.189 NS
rstd
Range	10.68–83.40	17.28–121.00	1.406
Means ± SD	36.67 ± 24.14	45.35 ± 23.71	0.165 NS
rvf0%
Range	4.36–31.83	6.61–33.74	0.980
Means ± SD	14.97 ± 10.23	17.39 ± 8.91	0.331 NS
rvAM%
Range	34.68–58.24	32.08–69.41	1.441
Means ± SD	44.79 ± 6.93	48.11 ± 10.55	0.156 NS

p, p-value for comparing between the studied groups; NS, statistically no significant difference (p ≥ 0.05); T-test, Student t-test; rF0, running speech F0; rT0, running speech pitch period; rFhi, highest fundamental frequency; rFlo, lowest fundamental frequency; rSTD, standard deviation of F0; rvf0%, frequency variability (rvf0); rvAm%, amplitude variability. *Statistically significant difference (p < 0.05)

Back to article page