ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2026
Linguistically Informed Automated Estimates of Creak in Adductor Laryngeal Dystonia.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCreaky voice is a perceptually low-pitched and irregular voice quality that has shown promise as an objective marker of adductor laryngeal dystonia (AdLD). However, creak also occurs in mainstream American English through linguistic processes (i.e., phrase-final creak, /t/ glottalization, word-initial vowel glottalization). This study investigated whether linguistically unexpected creak (i.e., creak occurring outside these phonological contexts) offers improved differentiation between AdLD and typical voices compared with total creak.
methodFifty speakers with AdLD and 50 age- and sex-matched controls read the first paragraph of
resultsBoth groups produced more expected than unexpected creak, but a significant interaction revealed that this difference was statistically weaker in the AdLD group. Between-groups differences were significantly larger for unexpected creak than for expected creak. Unexpected creak demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve = .82 vs. .77,
conclusionsPathological creak in AdLD disrupts normal linguistic patterning, spreading disproportionately into unexpected contexts. Linguistically unexpected creak provides superior diagnostic discrimination compared with total creak, suggesting that acoustic biomarkers accounting for linguistic context can meaningfully enhance diagnostic accuracy for AdLD.
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.