Estimation of the contact pressure on the medial surface of the vocal folds during phonation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Voice production involves flow-induced self-oscillations of the vocal folds. Collision between the vocal folds is commonly observed during normal phonation. The contact pressure experienced by human vocal folds during collision is usually considered as the most likely source of phonotrauma. The goal of the present study was to quantify contact pressures in human subjects during phonation. A pressure sensor was developed for direct measurements. Verification data and preliminary data on human subjects were obtained. Subject response and other clinical challenges lead to the development of a less intrusive approach for the contact pressure estimation from high speed images based on a Hertzian impact model. A verification of the accuracy of this approach was made. Results from the nonintrusive approach were compared with results from direct measurements using a hemilaryngeal physical model of the human vocal folds. The experimental setup was designed to reduce sensor’s interference with the vocal fold oscillations. The accuracy of the estimated contact pressure from the nonintrusive method was found to be within around 10%. Advantages and possible sources of error are discussed. [Work supported by NIH.]
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".