Physics of phonation offset: Towards understanding relative fundamental frequency observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relative fundamental frequency (RFF) is a promising assessment technique for vocal pathologies. Herein, we explore the underlying laryngeal factors dictating RFF behaviours during phonation offset. To gain physical insights, we analyze a simple impact oscillator model and follow that with a numerical study using the well-established body-cover model of the vocal folds (VFs). Study of the impact oscillator suggests that the observed decrease in fundamental frequency during offset is due, at least in part, to the increase in the neutral gap between the VFs during abduction and the concomitant decrease in collision forces. Moreover, the impact oscillator elucidates a correlation between sharper drops in RFF and increased stiffness of the VFs, supporting experimental RFF studies. The body-cover model study further emphasizes the correlation between the drops in RFF and collision forces. The numerical analysis also illustrates the sensitivity of RFF to abduction initiation time relative to the phase of the phonation cycle, and the abduction period length. In addition, the numerical simulations display the potential role of the cricothyroid muscle to mitigate the RFF reduction. Last, simplified models of phonotraumatic vocal hyperfunction are explored, demonstrating that the observed sharper drops in RFF are associated with increased pre-offset collision forces.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".