Bayesian Inference of Vocal Fold Material Properties from Glottal Area Waveforms Using a 2D Finite Element Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bayesian estimation has been previously demonstrated as a viable method for developing subject-specific vocal fold models from observations of the glottal area waveform. These prior efforts, however, have been restricted to lumped-element fitting models and synthetic observation data. The indirect relationship between the lumped-element parameters and physical tissue properties renders extracting the latter from the former difficult. Herein we propose a finite element fitting model, which treats the vocal folds as a viscoelastic deformable body comprised of three layers. Using the glottal area waveforms generated by self-oscillating silicone vocal folds we directly estimate the elastic moduli, density, and other material properties of the silicone folds using a Bayesian importance sampling approach. Estimated material properties agree with the "ground truth" experimental values to within 3% for most parameters. By considering cases with varying subglottal pressure and medial compression we demonstrate that the finite element model coupled with Bayesian estimation is sufficiently sensitive to distinguish between experimental configurations. Additional information not available experimentally, namely, contact pressures, are extracted from the developed finite element models. The contact pressures are found to increase with medial compression and subglottal pressure, in agreement with expectation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".