MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216840040 · doi:10.1121/10.0009169

Triangular body-cover model of the vocal folds with coordinated activation of the five intrinsic laryngeal muscles

2022· article· en· W3216840040 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel A. Alzamendi, Sean D. Peterson, Byron D. Erath, Robert E. Hillman, Matías Zañartu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Institutes of HealthAgencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo
KeywordsVocal foldsPhonationLarynxHyperfunctionKinematicsBiomechanicsStroboscopeMotor controlAnatomyMedicineAudiologyPhysicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poor laryngeal muscle coordination that results in abnormal glottal posturing is believed to be a primary etiologic factor in common voice disorders such as non-phonotraumatic vocal hyperfunction. Abnormal activity of antagonistic laryngeal muscles is hypothesized to play a key role in the alteration of normal vocal fold biomechanics that results in the dysphonia associated with such disorders. Current low-order models of the vocal folds are unsatisfactory to test this hypothesis since they do not capture the co-contraction of antagonist laryngeal muscle pairs. To address this limitation, a self-sustained triangular body-cover model with full intrinsic muscle control is introduced. The proposed scheme shows good agreement with prior studies using finite element models, excised larynges, and clinical studies in sustained and time-varying vocal gestures. Simulations of vocal fold posturing obtained with distinct antagonistic muscle activation yield clear differences in kinematic, aerodynamic, and acoustic measures. The proposed tool is deemed sufficiently accurate and flexible for future comprehensive investigations of non-phonotraumatic vocal hyperfunction and other laryngeal motor control disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207