ArticleInterspeech2026
Measuring Vocal Efficiency in Daily Life in Patients with Voice Disorders Using Wireless Accelerometer and Microphone Sensors.
Article in Interspeech, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Voice disorders are linked to inefficient phonation, with vocal efficiency (VE) measured in clinic. We studied ecological vocal efficiency (EVE) by estimating daily-life VE as SPL/Ps (dB/dB) using a wireless dual-sensor voice monitor: subglottal pressure (Ps) predicted from a neck-surface accelerometer (ACC) and sound pressure level (SPL) from a microphone. 14 females participated (7 with vocal fold nodules; 7 matched controls). In lab, VE was computed via a /p/-vowel sequence (loud-to-soft; 3 pitch levels). Participants completed 3 days of ambulatory monitoring (12 h/day), and EVE was computed. Patients showed lower EVE and reduced variability than controls in daily life (4.1 vs 4.7, effect size r = 0.67; SD 0.4 vs 1.0, r = 0.91); variability metrics separated groups better in field than in lab. Patients spent significantly more time outside the EVE normative range than controls (92 vs 36%; p = 0.03; r = 0.81). Preliminary results support EVE as an ecological marker of vocal function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42877408PMC13667885What 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.