ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2022
Comparison of one-dimensional and three-dimensional glottal flow models in left-right asymmetric vocal fold conditions.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the accuracy of one-dimensional glottal flow model in predicting voice production: comparison to experiments and three-dimensional flow simulations.Physics of fluids (Woodbury, N.Y. : 1994) · 2025Article
- Vocal tract contribution to vocal intensity: Interaction between vocal fold adduction, formant tuning, and fundamental frequency.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025Article
- Effects of false vocal fold adduction and aryepiglottic sphincter narrowing on the voice source in a three-dimensional voice production model.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025Article
- Restraining vocal fold vertical motion reduces source-filter interaction in a two-mass model.JASA express letters · 2024Article
- The influence of source-filter interaction on the voice source in a three-dimensional computational model of voice production.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
While the glottal flow is often simplified as one-dimensional (1D) in computational models of phonation to reduce computational costs, the 1D flow model has not been validated in left-right asymmetric vocal fold conditions, as often occur in both normal and pathological voice production. In this study, we performed three-dimensional (3D) and 1D flow simulations coupled to a two-mass model of adult male vocal folds and compared voice production at different degrees of left-right stiffness asymmetry. The flow and acoustic fields in 3D were obtained by solving the compressible Navier-Stokes equations using the volume penalization method with the moving vocal fold wall as an immersed boundary. Despite differences in the predicted flow pressure on vocal fold surface between the 1D and 3D flow models, the results showed reasonable agreement in vocal fold vibration patterns and selected voice outcome measures between the 1D and 3D models for the range of left-right asymmetric conditions investigated. This indicates that vocal fold properties play a larger role than the glottal flow in determining the overall pattern of vocal fold vibration and the produced voice, and the 1D flow simplification is sufficient in modeling phonation, at least for the simplified glottal geometry of this study.
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.