ArticleJournal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation2017
Validation and Evaluation of the Effects of Semi-Occluded Face Mask Straw Phonation Therapy Methods on Aerodynamic Parameters in Comparison to Traditional Methods.
Article in Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measurement of Pharyngeal Air Pressure During Phonation Using High-Resolution Manometry.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021Article
- Vocalization with semi-occluded airways is favorable for optimizing sound production.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Development of Excised Larynx.Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2020Review
- Effects of a simulated system of straw phonation on the complete phonatory range of excised canine larynges.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 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.
Funding
Abstract
objectives/hypothesisTraditional semi-occluded vocal tract therapies have the benefit of improving vocal economy but, do not allow for connected speech during rehabilitation. In this study, we introduce a semi-occluded face mask (SOFM) as an improvement upon current methods. This novel technique allows for normal speech production, and will make the transition to everyday speech more natural. We hypothesize that use of an SOFM will lead to the same gains in vocal economy seen in traditional methods. STUDY
designRepeated measures excised canine larynx bench experiment with each larynx subject to controls and a randomized series of experimental conditions.
methodsAerodynamic data were collected for 30 excised canine larynges. The larynges were subjected to conditions including a control, two tube extensions (15 and 30 cm), and two tube diameters (6.5 and 17 mm) both with and without the SOFM. Results were compared between groups and between conditions within each group.
resultsNo significant differences were found between the phonation threshold pressure and phonation threshold flow measurements obtained with or without the SOFM throughout all extension and constriction levels. Significant differences in phonation threshold pressure and phonation threshold flow were observed when varying the tube diameter while the same comparison for varying the tube length at least trended toward significance.
conclusionsThis study suggests that a SOFM can be used to elicit the same gains in vocal economy as what has been seen with traditional semi-occluded vocal tract methods. Future studies should test this novel technique in human subjects to validate its use in a clinical setting.
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.