ArticleJournal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation2026
Integrating Ambulatory Biofeedback Based on Harmonic Level Differences Into Vocal Hyperfunction Treatment: Two Case Studies.
Article in Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAmbulatory biofeedback has been associated with improved generalization of modified pitch or loudness from the clinic into daily life for patients with Vocal Hyperfunction (VH). Pitch and loudness are auditory perceptual constructs readily detected and modified by many patients. They also have close connections to objective acoustic measures like fundamental frequency and sound pressure level. However, these constructs are not directly related to VH's pathophysiology. In contrast, H1-H2-the difference between the first two harmonics-is directly linked to abnormal vocal fold closure dynamics and treatment improvements. But its association with constructs that the patient can perceive-like breathiness, strain, airflow, and resonance-is more nuanced than pitch and loudness. This proof-of-concept study formally tested if ambulatory biofeedback based on H1-H2 can help two patients improve generalization in voice therapy.
methodTwo patients with VH wore a voice monitor in daily life before starting voice therapy and after three therapy sessions. Biofeedback was turned on in daily life only after the second therapy session. Biofeedback consisted of a 200-ms vibrotactile cue when a H1-H2 threshold was surpassed for 500-ms.
resultsNeither patient generalized after session 1. For both patients, ambulatory biofeedback based on H1-H2 was associated with significantly increased generalization after session 2 compared to baseline monitoring (d = 0.8-1.6) and session 1 (d = 1.2-1.7). Only one patient retained his increased generalization when the biofeedback was turned off after session 3 compared to baseline (d = 0.9) and session 1 (d = 1.3).
conclusionsAmbulatory biofeedback based on H1-H2 improved generalization for both VH patients, however, only one patient retained improvements after turning the biofeedback off. Future work should investigate the efficacy of incorporating H1-H2, and potentially other biomarkers associated with pathophysiology into ambulatory biofeedback for patients with VH.
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.