ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Ultrasonic Vocalization Acoustics After Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Injury and Recovery.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasonic Vocalization Acoustics After Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Injury and Recovery.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- The role of ultrasonic vocalizations in rat laryngological investigations.Physiology & behavior · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe lack of well-defined functional acoustic correlates of vocal fold paralysis in animal models creates challenges for translating basic science studies of recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) injury to patients with vocal fold paralysis. Capitalizing on natural communicative rodent ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs), this study aimed to (1) investigate the impact of RLN injury on USV acoustics in both acute and chronic stages of RLN injury and (2) to identify USV parameters with the greatest ecological validity specific to RLN injury.
methodsUSVs were recorded over 2 weeks (acute) in 16 animals and over 30 weeks (chronic) in 8 animals using two USV elicitation paradigms (n = 16 non-elicited, spontaneous; n = 8 elicited, sexually paired). USV acoustic characteristics from a list of possible parameters (duration, principal frequency, complexity, power, and tonality) were compared across USV elicitation paradigms and time points (before RLN injury, 2 weeks after injury, and 30 weeks after injury).
resultsThe USV parameters most impacted by RLN injury were frequency, power, and tonality, with significant decreases in all three parameters in both non-elicited/spontaneous and sexually elicited USV elicitation paradigms. All USV parameters were stable across 30 weeks after RLN injury.
conclusionUSV acoustic frequency, power, and tonality best characterize RLN injury and are stable over time, demonstrating their ecological utility in characterizing RLN injury and recovery. Furthermore, their stability can ensure accurate outcome metrics for future studies. Finally, these parameters have direct translation to humans with vocal fold paralysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.
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.