Relationship between Vowel Sound Features and Pharyngeal Airway Cross-Sectional Area during Normal Breathing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessment of the pharyngeal airway is becoming important for delivering personalized treatment and better management of sleep apnea. However, evaluation of the pharyngeal airway area is difficult in the current state of the art. It is essential to use simple and accessible technology to measure the pharyngeal airway area. As vowel sounds are generated by vocal cords vibration and characterized by the pharyngeal airway, vowel sounds have the potential to evaluate the pharyngeal airway area. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between acoustic features of vowel sounds and the pharyngeal airway cross-sectional area (PAXSA) between soft palate and glottis. Twenty subjects were included in this study whose PAXSA was measured by acoustic pharyngometry. Vowel sounds were recorded with a microphone while lying supine. Vowel sound average power was calculated in different frequency ranges of 100-3000 Hz, 100-500 Hz, 500-1000 Hz, 1000-1500 Hz, 1500-2000 Hz, 2000-2500 Hz and 2500-3000 Hz. Statistical analysis showed that the decreases in the PAXSA were strongly correlated with the higher average power of vowel sounds in all frequency ranges. These results showed that individuals with low PAXSA might articulate the vowel in higher intensity. Clinical Relevance - This study demonstrates that the pharyngeal airway cross-sectional area during normal breathing has a significant effect on vowel articulation. Thus, vowel sound features can be used to estimate the resting pharyngeal airway cross-sectional area.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".