Effects of Masking Noise on Laryngeal Resistance for Breathy, Normal, and Pressed Voice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to explore the effects of masking noise on laryngeal resistance for breathy, normal, and pressed voice in vocally trained women. METHOD: Eighteen vocally trained women produced breathy, normal, and pressed voice across 7 fundamental frequencies during a repeated CV utterance of /pi/ under normal and masked auditory feedback. Dependent variables were mean and standard deviation of laryngeal resistance (LR; cmH2O/l/s). RESULTS: LR values for breathy and normal voice remained constant across normal and masked auditory feedback, whereas LR values for pressed voice increased significantly from normal to masked auditory feedback. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that both voice pattern and feedback condition influenced the stability of the LR data. Specifically, the pressed voice pattern may be more susceptible to auditory feedback influence because it was less stable than the breathy and the normal voice patterns. Future investigation should continue to explore the relevance of auditory feedback for theoretical and clinical issues surrounding voice.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".