ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2019
Test-Retest Reliability of Relative Fundamental Frequency and Conventional Acoustic, Aerodynamic, and Perceptual Measures in Individuals With Healthy Voices.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An End-to-End Overview of Clinical Speech AI.IEEE transactions on audio, speech, and language processing (2025) · 2026Article
- Changes in Relative Fundamental Frequency Under Increased Cognitive Load in Individuals With Healthy Voices.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021Article
- Clinical classification of memory and cognitive impairment with multimodal digital biomarkers.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose Recent studies have shown that an acoustic measure, relative fundamental frequency (RFF), has potential for the assessment of excessive laryngeal tension and vocal effort associated with functional and neurological voice disorders. This study presents an analysis of the test-retest reliability of RFF in individuals with healthy voices and a comparison of reliability between RFF and conventional measures of voice. Method Acoustic and aerodynamic measurements and Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) were performed on 28 individuals with healthy voices on 5 consecutive days. Participants produced RFF stimuli, a sustained /ɑ/, and a reading passage to allow for extraction of acoustic measures and CAPE-V ratings; /pa/ trains were produced to allow for extraction of aerodynamic measures. Results Moderate reliabilities (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = .64-.71) were found for RFF values. Mean vocal fundamental frequency, smoothed cepstral peak prominence, shimmer, harmonics-to-noise ratio, and mean airflow rate exhibited good-to-excellent reliabilities (ICC = .76-.99). ICCs for jitter and phonation threshold pressure were moderately reliable (ICC = .67-.74). ICCs for subglottal pressure estimates and all CAPE-V parameters showed poor reliabilities (ICC = .31-.58). Conclusion RFF has comparable reliability to conventional measures of voice. This expands the potential for clinical application of RFF. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8233376.
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.