Immediate effects of postural repositioning on maximum phonation duration tasks in seated individuals with acquired dysarthria: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of a single 10-min postural repositioning session on the maximum phonation duration (MPD) of the vowel/a/in individuals with acquired dysarthria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A pre-post interventional design was implemented; five patients with dysarthria (PWDs) underwent a single 2-hour experimental session. MPD capacities were assessed before and immediately after a 10-min postural repositioning intervention by a physical and occupational therapist. Five age- and sex-matched individuals without dysarthria were recruited as controls. The main outcome measure was the MPD of the vowel/a/at conversational and louder voice levels, with a speech-and-language therapist standing 1 and 6 m away, respectively. Secondary outcome measures were thoracic expansion, manometry, electromyographic recordings of axial muscles and perceived effort. RESULTS: In PWDs, postural repositioning improved the MPD during the/a/-1-m (80.3% increase) and/a/-6-m tasks (18% increase), increased thoracic expansion and manometric measurements, and reduced the perceived effort necessary to perform the tasks. A triphasic electromyographic pattern was observed during both/a/-1-m and/a/-6-m tasks in controls, but was absent in participants with severe dysarthria, even after postural repositioning. Nonetheless, postural repositioning enabled an earlier onset of EMG activity prior to voice production. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest the efficacy of postural repositioning in improving phonatory capacities essential for voice production in PWDs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".