MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Auditory‐Perceptual Scaling and Quality of Life in Tracheoesophageal Speakers

2004· article· en· W2006256101 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCollege of Science and Health
KeywordsAudiologyTracheoesophageal fistulaPerceptionPsychologySpeech perceptionQuality of life (healthcare)MedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The purposes of the study were to determine listeners' auditory-perceptual ratings of tracheoesophageal speakers, to determine quality of life in tracheoesophageal speakers, and to determine the potential relationship between listeners' ratings of speech and tracheoesophageal speakers' self-rated quality of life. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-eight laryngectomized individuals who used tracheoesophageal speech as their primary mode of communication were studied. Fifteen naïve listeners provided auditory-perceptual ratings. METHODS: Twenty-eight tracheoesophageal speakers (22 men and 6 women) completed a general information form, in addition to the University of Michigan Head and Neck Quality of Life (HNQOL) instrument; speakers also provided connected speech samples of a standard passage. Fifteen naïve listeners evaluated the tracheoesophageal speech samples for overall speech severity, naturalness, acceptability, and pleasantness using direct magnitude estimation procedures. RESULTS: Listeners were able to discriminate among tracheoesophageal speech samples relative to the auditory-perceptual dimensions. Male tracheoesophageal speakers were judged as having significantly better, more acceptable, and more pleasant voices than women. Scores on the HNQOL instrument were determined to be higher among the group of tracheoesophageal speakers in the present study than those reported in previous studies. No significant differences were found among men and women for quality of life scores. Quality of life domains and auditory-perceptual judgments of tracheoesophageal speech were moderately correlated. CONCLUSION: Women who use tracheoesophageal speech may be differentially penalized for dimensions related to voice quality. Limitations in voice did not necessarily translate into worse overall quality of life, indicating that auditory-perceptual evaluation and quality of life questionnaires are evaluating different aspects of function after laryngectomy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it