ArticleSpeech communication2020
Analysis of Glottal Inverse Filtering in the Presence of Source-Filter Interaction.
Article in Speech communication, 2020. 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, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI-Driven Lumped-Element Modeling of Human Respiratory System for Studying Voice Mechanics.Research square · 2026Article
- Toward ambulatory monitoring of vocal behavior at the physiological level using deep ensembles and Bayesian neural networks.JASA express letters · 2025Article
- Maximum Correntropy Linear Prediction for Voice Inverse Filtering: Theoretical Framework and Practical Implementation.IEEE transactions on audio, speech, and language processing (2025) · 2025Article
- Deep Learning for Neuromuscular Control of Vocal Source for Voice Production.Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The validity of glottal inverse filtering (GIF) to obtain a glottal flow waveform from radiated pressure signal in the presence and absence of source-filter interaction was studied systematically. A driven vocal fold surface model of vocal fold vibration was used to generate source signals. A one-dimensional wave reflection algorithm was used to solve for acoustic pressures in the vocal tract. Several test signals were generated with and without source-filter interaction at various fundamental frequencies and vowels. Linear Predictive Coding (LPC), Quasi Closed Phase (QCP), and Quadratic Programming (QPR) based algorithms, along with supraglottal impulse response, were used to inverse filter the radiated pressure signals to obtain the glottal flow pulses. The accuracy of each algorithm was tested for its recovery of maximum flow declination rate (MFDR), peak glottal flow, open phase ripple factor, closed phase ripple factor, and mean squared error. The algorithms were also tested for their absolute relative errors of the Normalized Amplitude Quotient, the Quasi-Open Quotient, and the Harmonic Richness Factor. The results indicated that the mean squared error decreased with increase in source-filter interaction level suggesting that the inverse filtering algorithms perform better in the presence of source-filter interaction. All glottal inverse filtering algorithms predicted the open phase ripple factor better than the closed phase ripple factor of a glottal flow waveform, irrespective of the source-filter interaction level. Major prediction errors occurred in the estimation of the closed phase ripple factor, MFDR, peak glottal flow, normalized amplitude quotient, and Quasi-Open Quotient. Feedback-related nonlinearity (source-filter interaction) affected the recovered signal primarily when
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.