ReviewHNO2016
[Current methods for modelling voice production].
Review in HNO, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical simulation of vocal fold dynamics in adults based on laryngeal high-speed videoendoscopy.PloS one · 2017Trial
- Impact of Subharmonic and Aperiodic Laryngeal Dynamics on the Phonatory Process Analyzed in Ex Vivo Rabbit Models.Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany details of the phonatory process are not yet fully understood. Besides observational research, scientists have long since been trying to explain the physical fundamentals of voicing using simulations. This approach is commonly called modeling. However, the knowledge gained often failed to find its way to professionals working with the voice, such as singing teachers, voice therapists, and voice coaches, and sometimes also to otorhinolaryngologists and phoniatricians. The reason for this is that scientific publications on this topic mostly contain very detailed mathematical and physical descriptions, which are often hard to understand.
objectiveA simplified presentation and explanation of current methods for modeling the phonatory process, which have contributed greatly to uncovering and understanding the relationships involved in voicing during recent years.
methodsThe presented methods cover a wide spectrum, ranging from numerically rather simple to mathematically highly complex models. Experimental models are based on self-oscillating silicon or static vocal folds. Cadaver models have the advantage of being representative of the natural phonation process.
resultsAn overview of different kinds of models is given to show the diversity of modeling approaches without going into mathematical or physical details.
conclusionNumerical and experimental models for simulating the phonatory process enable causalities and correlations to be uncovered, which can be used in the future to adapt conservative and surgical voice therapies, or even to suggest entire new treatment strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.