Buzzer versus water resistance phonation used in voice therapy. Results obtained with physical modeling
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61388998%3A_____%2F21%3A00539197" target="_blank" >RIV/61388998:_____/21:00539197 - isvavai.cz</a>
Result on the web
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746809421000148?via%3Dihub" target="_blank" >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746809421000148?via%3Dihub</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2021.102417" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.bspc.2021.102417</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Buzzer versus water resistance phonation used in voice therapy. Results obtained with physical modeling
Original language description
Objective: Mechanical buzzers have been developed to clear excessive mucus from the lungs and trachea. Recently, they have been tested for voice therapy. By rapidly interrupting airflow they cause an oscillation of oral pressure, resembling phonation through a tube into water, which is traditionally used in voice therapy (water resistance therapy, WRT). This study compared phonation through a buzzer (Shaker deluxe™) with WRT with a glass resonance tube. Methods: Measurements were made for subglottic and oral air pressures, airflow, transglottic pressure (Ptrans) and peak-to-peak (p-t-p) oral pressure oscillation, and for glottal area variation, using a physical model of voice production, as such detailed study is not possible in humans. High-speed-imaging was used to study glottal area variation during phonation. Shaker was tested in both horizontal and upright positions. Results: Shaker upright had slightly higher flow resistance than resonance tube 10 cm in water, while Shaker horizontally had ca half of that. Ptrans was lower for Shaker in both positions, and maximum glottal amplitude and maximum glottal area declination rate were lower. Buzzing frequency for Shaker horizontally approximately corresponded to water bubbling frequency, while it was about twice that for Shaker upright. P-t-p oral pressure oscillation was higher in WRT, seemingly due to the much lower frequency of the lowest acoustic resonance of the vocal tract prolonged by the resonance tube. Conclusions: WRT may offer stronger ‘massage-like’ effect for the vocal tract and vocal folds than Shaker, while Shaker may promote softer phonation.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
10307 - Acoustics
Result continuities
Project
<a href="/en/project/GA19-04477S" target="_blank" >GA19-04477S: Modelling and measurements of fluid-structure-acoustic interactions in biomechanics of human voice production</a><br>
Continuities
P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)
Others
Publication year
2021
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
Biomedical Signal Processing and Control
ISSN
1746-8094
e-ISSN
1746-8108
Volume of the periodical
66
Issue of the periodical within the volume
April
Country of publishing house
NL - THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS
Number of pages
10
Pages from-to
102417
UT code for WoS article
000636240200029
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85099778477