ArticlePloS one2022
Relationships between maximum tongue pressure and second formant transition in speakers with different types of dysarthria.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A pilot study on the acoustic effects of a pseudo-palatal plate on speech: Implications for articulatory rehabilitation devices.PloS one · 2026Article
- Electrical impedance phase variation in relation to articulation manner.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- To Treat or Not to Treat: A Scoping Review of Speech Treatment for Dysarthria in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Oromotor Nonverbal Performance and Speech Motor Control: Theory and Review of Empirical Evidence.Brain sciences · 2023Review
- Optogenetic activation of the tongue in spontaneously breathing mice.Respiratory physiology & neurobiology · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effects of muscle weakness on speech are currently not fully known. We investigated the relationships between maximum tongue pressure and second formant transition in adults with different types of dysarthria. It focused on the slope in the second formant transition because it reflects the tongue velocity during articulation. Sixty-three Japanese speakers with dysarthria (median age, 68 years; interquartile range, 58-77 years; 44 men and 19 women) admitted to acute and convalescent hospitals were included. Thirty neurologically normal speakers aged 19-85 years (median age, 22 years; interquartile range, 21.0-23.8 years; 14 men and 16 women) were also included. The relationship between the maximum tongue pressure and speech function was evaluated using correlation analysis in the dysarthria group. Speech intelligibility, the oral diadochokinesis rate, and the second formant slope were based on the impaired speech index. More than half of the speakers had mild to moderate dysarthria. Speakers with dysarthria showed significantly lower maximum tongue pressure, speech intelligibility, oral diadochokinesis rate, and second formant slope than neurologically normal speakers. Only the second formant slope was significantly correlated with the maximum tongue pressure (r = 0.368, p = 0.003). The relationship between the second formant slope and maximum tongue pressure showed a similar correlation in the analysis of subgroups divided by sex. The oral diadochokinesis rate, which is related to the speed of articulation, is affected by voice on/off, mandibular opening/closing, and range of motion. In contrast, the second formant slope was less affected by these factors. These results suggest that the maximum isometric tongue strength is associated with tongue movement speed during articulation.
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.