Estimation of inferior-superior vocal fold kinematics from high-speed stereo endoscopic data <i>in vivo</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite being an indispensable tool for both researchers and clinicians, traditional endoscopic imaging of the human vocal folds is limited in that it cannot capture their inferior-superior motion. A three-dimensional reconstruction technique using high-speed video imaging of the vocal folds in stereo is explored in an effort to estimate the inferior-superior motion of the medial-most edge of the vocal folds under normal muscle activation in vivo. Traditional stereo-matching algorithms from the field of computer vision are considered and modified to suit the specific challenges of the in vivo application. Inferior-superior motion of the medial vocal fold surface of three healthy speakers is reconstructed over one glottal cycle. The inferior-superior amplitude of the mucosal wave is found to be approximately 13 mm for normal modal voice, reducing to approximately 3 mm for strained falsetto voice, with uncertainty estimated at σ ≈ 2 mm and σ ≈ 1 mm, respectively. Sources of error, and their relative effects on the estimation of the inferior-superior motion, are considered and recommendations are made to improve the technique.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".