Literature DB >> 10641666

Comparison between electroglottography and electromagnetic glottography.

I R Titze1, B H Story, G C Burnett, J F Holzrichter, L C Ng, W A Lea.   

Abstract

Newly developed glottographic sensors, utilizing high-frequency propagating electromagnetic waves, were compared to a well-established electroglottographic device. The comparison was made on four male subjects under different phonation conditions, including three levels of vocal fold adduction (normal, breathy, and pressed), three different registers (falsetto, chest, and fry), and two different pitches. Agreement between the sensors was always found for the glottal closure event, but for the general wave shape the agreement was better for falsetto and breathy voice than for pressed voice and vocal fry. Differences are attributed to the field patterns of the devices. Whereas the electroglottographic device can operate only in a conduction mode, the electromagnetic device can operate in either the forward scattering (diffraction) mode or in the backward scattering (reflection) mode. Results of our tests favor the diffraction mode because a more favorable angle imposed on receiving the scattered (reflected) signal did not improve the signal strength. Several observations are made on the uses of the electromagnetic sensors for operation without skin contact and possibly in an array configuration for improved spatial resolution within the glottis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10641666     DOI: 10.1121/1.428324

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  2 in total

1.  Detection of the Vibration Signal from Human Vocal Folds Using a 94-GHz Millimeter-Wave Radar.

Authors:  Fuming Chen; Sheng Li; Yang Zhang; Jianqi Wang
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2017-03-08       Impact factor: 3.576

2.  The relationship between biomechanics of pharyngoesophageal segment and tracheoesophageal phonation.

Authors:  Teng Zhang; Ian Cook; Michał Szczęśniak; Julia Maclean; Peter Wu; Duong Duy Nguyen; Catherine Madill
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-07-05       Impact factor: 4.379

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.