Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28329366›Full record

Trial reportJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2017

Ambulatory Voice Biofeedback: Relative Frequency and Summary Feedback Effects on Performance and Retention of Reduced Vocal Intensity in the Daily Lives of Participants With Normal Voices.

Jarrad H Van Stan, Daryush D Mehta, Dagmar Sternad, Robert Petit, Robert E Hillman

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Effect of an iOS App on Voice Therapy Adherence and Motivation.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2021
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Automated Relative Fundamental Frequency Algorithms for Use With Neck-Surface Accelerometer Signals.Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Building a Successful Voice Telepractice Program.Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jarrad H Van StanMassachusetts General Hospital, BostonMGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MAHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Daryush D MehtaMassachusetts General Hospital, BostonMGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MAHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Dagmar SternadNortheastern University, Boston, MA.
Robert PetitIndependent Scholar, Boston, MA.
Robert E HillmanMassachusetts General Hospital, BostonMGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MAHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USFilm Independent · USHarvard University · USNortheastern University · US

Funding

Ambulatory monitoring of vocal function to improve voice disorder assessmentR33DC011588 · NIDCD · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HILLMAN, ROBERT E · 2012 to 2015
$2.3M
Predictability in Complex Object ControlR01HD087089 · NICHD · NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY · PI STERNAD, DAGMAR · 2015 to 2020
$1.8M
The Influence of Ambulatory Biofeedback Schedules on the Retention of a Vocal Motor behaviorF31DC014412 · NIDCD · MGH INSTITUTE OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS · PI VAN STAN, JARRAD · 2014 to 2015
$54k
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD087089NIDCD NIH HHS F31 DC014412NIDCD NIH HHS R33 DC011588
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Ambulatory voice biofeedback has the potential to significantly improve voice therapy effectiveness by targeting carryover of desired behaviors outside the therapy session (i.e., retention). This study applies motor learning concepts (reduced frequency and delayed, summary feedback) that demonstrate increased retention to ambulatory voice monitoring for training nurses to talk softer during work hours. Method: Forty-eight nurses with normal voices wore the Voice Health Monitor (Mehta, Zañartu, Feng, Cheyne, & Hillman, 2012) for 6 days: 3 baseline days, 1 biofeedback day, 1 short-term retention day, and 1 long-term retention day. Participants were block-randomized into 3 different biofeedback groups: 100%, 25%, and Summary. Performance was measured in terms of compliance time below a participant-specific vocal intensity threshold. Results: All participants exhibited a significant increase in compliance time (Cohen's d = 4.5) during biofeedback days compared with baseline days. The Summary feedback group exhibited statistically smaller performance reduction during both short-term (d = 1.14) and long-term (d = 1.04) retention days compared with the 100% feedback group. Conclusions: These findings suggest that modifications in feedback frequency and timing affect retention of a modified vocal behavior in daily life. Future work calls for studying the potential beneficial impact of ambulatory voice biofeedback in participants with behaviorally based voice disorders.

Indexed as

LearningMemoryMonitoring, AmbulatoryVoiceAdultAnalysis of VarianceBiofeedback, PsychologyComputers, HandheldCritical Care NursingFemaleHumansMaleMotor SkillsNoise, OccupationalNursesQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID28329366
PMCPMC5548081
OpenAlexW2602826763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.