ArticleJournal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation2025
Normative Thresholds for Acoustic Estimates of Relative Fundamental Frequency.
Article in Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeThe purpose of this study was to establish normative thresholds for relative fundamental frequency (RFF) referencing individuals with typical voices.
methodA total of 150 speakers (75 males, 75 females) without voice disorders were evenly divided into three age groups: 18-39, 40-64, and 65+ years. Each participant produced three repetitions of the utterances /ɑfɑ/, /ifi/, and /ufu/ at their typical pitch and loudness, which were recorded for analysis. A semi-automated RFF algorithm calculated the offset and onset cycles of the vowels (/ɑ/, /i/, /u/) before and after each /f/ production. Resulting mean offset and onset values were aggregated across utterances for each participant. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was completed to assess the effect of speaker sex, age group, and their interaction for offset cycle 10 (OFF10) and onset cycle 1 (ON1) values. Normative thresholds for OFF10 and ON1 were established based on the mean and standard deviations of these measures according to significant effects indicated by follow-up univariate ANOVA models.
resultsEffects of sex and age group were significant in the MANOVA models for OFF10 and ON1. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs indicated that age group was a significant factor for OFF10, and speaker sex was significant for ON1.
conclusionsThe current study identified statistically significant effects of age on RFF values for OFF10 and sex on RFF values for ON1. Normative thresholds for RFF at these cycles were therefore established based on these demographic factors. Future research should explore the clinical utility of these thresholds for distinguishing individuals with voice disorders from those with typical vocal function.
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.