Amanda S Fryd1, Jarrad H Van Stan1, Robert E Hillman2, Daryush D Mehta3. 1. Communication Sciences and Disorders, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Charlestown, MACenter for Laryngeal Surgery and Voice Rehabilitation, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 2. Communication Sciences and Disorders, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Charlestown, MACenter for Laryngeal Surgery and Voice Rehabilitation, Massachusetts General Hospital, BostonDepartment of Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MASurgery & Health Sciences and Technology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. Communication Sciences and Disorders, MGH Institute of Health Professions, Charlestown, MACenter for Laryngeal Surgery and Voice Rehabilitation, Massachusetts General Hospital, BostonDepartment of Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential for estimating subglottal air pressure using a neck-surface accelerometer and to compare the accuracy of predicting subglottal air pressure relative to predicting acoustic sound pressure level (SPL). Method: Indirect estimates of subglottal pressure (Psg') were obtained from 10 vocally healthy speakers during loud-to-soft repetitions of 3 different /p/-vowel gestures (/pa/, /pi/, /pu/) at 3 pitch levels in the modal register. Intraoral air pressure, neck-surface acceleration, and radiated acoustic pressure were recorded, and the root-mean-square amplitude of the acceleration signal was correlated with Psg' and SPL. Results: The coefficient of determination between accelerometer level and Psg' was high when data were pooled from all vowel and pitch contexts for each participant (r2 = .68-.93). These relationships were stronger than corresponding relationships between accelerometer level and SPL (r2 = .46-.81). The average 95% prediction interval for estimating Psg' using accelerometer level was ±2.53 cm H2O, ranging from ±1.70 to ±3.74 cm H2O across participants. Conclusions: Accelerometer signal amplitude correlated more strongly with Psg' than with SPL. Future work is warranted to investigate the robustness of the relationship in nonmodal voice qualities, individuals with voice disorders, and accelerometer-based ambulatory monitoring of subglottal pressure.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential for estimating subglottal air pressure using a neck-surface accelerometer and to compare the accuracy of predicting subglottal air pressure relative to predicting acoustic sound pressure level (SPL). Method: Indirect estimates of subglottal pressure (Psg') were obtained from 10 vocally healthy speakers during loud-to-soft repetitions of 3 different /p/-vowel gestures (/pa/, /pi/, /pu/) at 3 pitch levels in the modal register. Intraoral air pressure, neck-surface acceleration, and radiated acoustic pressure were recorded, and the root-mean-square amplitude of the acceleration signal was correlated with Psg' and SPL. Results: The coefficient of determination between accelerometer level and Psg' was high when data were pooled from all vowel and pitch contexts for each participant (r2 = .68-.93). These relationships were stronger than corresponding relationships between accelerometer level and SPL (r2 = .46-.81). The average 95% prediction interval for estimating Psg' using accelerometer level was ±2.53 cm H2O, ranging from ±1.70 to ±3.74 cm H2O across participants. Conclusions: Accelerometer signal amplitude correlated more strongly with Psg' than with SPL. Future work is warranted to investigate the robustness of the relationship in nonmodal voice qualities, individuals with voice disorders, and accelerometer-based ambulatory monitoring of subglottal pressure.
Authors: Matías Zañartu; Gabriel E Galindo; Byron D Erath; Sean D Peterson; George R Wodicka; Robert E Hillman Journal: J Acoust Soc Am Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: Jarrad H Van Stan; Daryush D Mehta; Steven M Zeitels; James A Burns; Anca M Barbu; Robert E Hillman Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 1.547
Authors: Michael Döllinger; James Kobler; David A Berry; Daryush D Mehta; Georg Luegmair; Christopher Bohr Journal: Curr Bioinform Date: 2011 Impact factor: 3.543
Authors: Victoria S McKenna; Manuel E Diaz-Cadiz; Adrianna C Shembel; Nicole M Enos; Cara E Stepp Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2019-04-15 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Jarrad H Van Stan; Se-Woong Park; Matthew Jarvis; Daryush D Mehta; Robert E Hillman; Dagmar Sternad Journal: J Acoust Soc Am Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 1.840
Authors: Jarrad H Van Stan; Daryush D Mehta; Andrew J Ortiz; James A Burns; Laura E Toles; Katherine L Marks; Mark Vangel; Tiffiny Hron; Steven Zeitels; Robert E Hillman Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Katherine L Marks; Jonathan Z Lin; Annie B Fox; Laura E Toles; Daryush D Mehta Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2019-09-13 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Katherine L Marks; Jonathan Z Lin; James A Burns; Tiffiny A Hron; Robert E Hillman; Daryush D Mehta Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Víctor M Espinoza; Daryush D Mehta; Jarrad H Van Stan; Robert E Hillman; Matías Zañartu Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Jon Z Lin; Víctor M Espinoza; Katherine L Marks; Matías Zañartu; Daryush D Mehta Journal: IEEE J Sel Top Signal Process Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 6.856
Authors: Victoria S McKenna; Andres F Llico; Daryush D Mehta; Joseph S Perkell; Cara E Stepp Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Jarrad H Van Stan; Daryush D Mehta; Andrew J Ortiz; James A Burns; Katherine L Marks; Laura E Toles; Tara Stadelman-Cohen; Carol Krusemark; Jason Muise; Tiffiny Hron; Steven M Zeitels; Annie B Fox; Robert E Hillman Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 2.297