Maximum Interlabial Pressures in Normal Speakers It has been hypothesized that typical speech movements do not involve large muscular forces and that normal speakers use less than 20% of the maximum orofacial muscle contractile forces that are available (e.g., Amerman, 1993; Barlow & Abbs, 1984; Barlow & Netsell, 1986; DePaul & Brooks, 1993). However, no direct ... Research Note
Research Note  |   April 01, 1997
Maximum Interlabial Pressures in Normal Speakers
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Virginia A. Hinton
    Division of Communication Sciences and Disorders University of North Carolina-Greensboro
  • Winston M. C. Arokiasamy
    Speech Language Pathology Services of Robeson County
Article Information
Normal Language Processing / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Speech / Research Note
Research Note   |   April 01, 1997
Maximum Interlabial Pressures in Normal Speakers
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, April 1997, Vol. 40, 400-404. doi:10.1044/jslhr.4002.400
History: Received July 8, 1996 , Accepted November 14, 1996
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, April 1997, Vol. 40, 400-404. doi:10.1044/jslhr.4002.400
History: Received July 8, 1996; Accepted November 14, 1996

It has been hypothesized that typical speech movements do not involve large muscular forces and that normal speakers use less than 20% of the maximum orofacial muscle contractile forces that are available (e.g., Amerman, 1993; Barlow & Abbs, 1984; Barlow & Netsell, 1986; DePaul & Brooks, 1993). However, no direct evidence for this hypothesis has been provided. This study investigated the percentage of maximum interlabial contact pressures (force per unit area) typically used during speech production. The primary conclusion of this study is that normal speakers typically use less than 20% of the available interlabial contact pressure, whether or not the jaw contributes to bilabial closure. Production of the phone [p] at conversational rate and intensity generated an average of 10.56% of maximum available interlabial pressure (MILP) when jaw movement was not restricted and 14.62% when jaw movement was eliminated.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Dr. Steve Barlow, Dr. Bruce Smith, and two anonymous reviewers for their extremely helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access