ArticleApplied sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Examining the Quasi-Steady Airflow Assumption in Irregular Vocal Fold Vibration.
Article in Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pressure Distributions in Glottal Geometries With Multichannel Airflows.Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The quasi-steady flow assumption (QSFA) is commonly used in the field of biomechanics of phonation. It approximates time-varying glottal flow with steady flow solutions based on frozen glottal shapes, ignoring unsteady flow behaviors and vocal fold motion. This study examined the limitations of QSFA in human phonation using numerical methods by considering factors of phonation frequency, air inertance in the vocal tract, and irregular glottal shapes. Two sets of irregular glottal shapes were examined through dynamic, pseudo-static, and quasi-steady simulations. The differences between dynamic and quasi-steady/pseudo-static simulations were measured for glottal flow rate, glottal wall pressure, and sound spectrum to evaluate the validity of QSFA. The results show that errors in glottal flow rate and wall pressure predicted by QSFA were small at 100 Hz but significant at 500 Hz due to growing flow unsteadiness. Air inertia in the vocal tract worsened predictions when interacting with unsteady glottal flow. Flow unsteadiness also influenced the harmonic energy ratio, which is perceptually important. The effects of glottal shape and glottal wall motion on the validity of QSFA were found to be insignificant.
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.