These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

375 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12731627)

  • 41. A Cepstral Analysis of Normal and Pathologic Voice Qualities in Iranian Adults: A Comparative Study.
    Hasanvand A; Salehi A; Ebrahimipour M
    J Voice; 2017 Jul; 31(4):508.e17-508.e23. PubMed ID: 27993499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Validation of the Cepstral Spectral Index of Dysphonia (CSID) as a Screening Tool for Voice Disorders: Development of Clinical Cutoff Scores.
    Awan SN; Roy N; Zhang D; Cohen SM
    J Voice; 2016 Mar; 30(2):130-44. PubMed ID: 26361215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Objective voice quality analysis before and after onset of unilateral vocal fold paralysis.
    Hartl DM; Hans S; Vaissière J; Riquet M; Brasnu DF
    J Voice; 2001 Sep; 15(3):351-61. PubMed ID: 11575632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Cepstral Peak Prominence Values for Clinical Voice Evaluation.
    Murton O; Hillman R; Mehta D
    Am J Speech Lang Pathol; 2020 Aug; 29(3):1596-1607. PubMed ID: 32658592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Predicting Intelligibility Deficit in Dysphonic Speech with Cepstral Peak Prominence.
    Ishikawa K; de Alarcon A; Khosla S; Kelchner L; Silbert N; Boyce S
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol; 2018 Feb; 127(2):69-78. PubMed ID: 29224360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. The cut-off analysis using visual analogue scale and cepstral assessments on severity of voice disorder.
    Lee YW; Kim GH; Bae IH; Park HJ; Wang SG; Kwon SB
    Logoped Phoniatr Vocol; 2018 Dec; 43(4):175-180. PubMed ID: 29671679
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Acoustic comparison of vowel sounds among adult females.
    Franca MC
    J Voice; 2012 Sep; 26(5):671.e9-17. PubMed ID: 22285451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. The Effect of Parkinson Disease Tremor Phenotype on Cepstral Peak Prominence and Transglottal Airflow in Vowels and Speech.
    Burk BR; Watts CR
    J Voice; 2019 Jul; 33(4):580.e11-580.e19. PubMed ID: 29472149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Cepstral analysis of normal and pathological voice in Spanish adults. Smoothed cepstral peak prominence in sustained vowels versus connected speech.
    Delgado-Hernández J; León-Gómez NM; Izquierdo-Arteaga LM; Llanos-Fumero Y
    Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp (Engl Ed); 2018; 69(3):134-140. PubMed ID: 28867553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Objective and subjective evaluation of voice quality in multiple sclerosis.
    Dogan M; Midi I; Yazici MA; Kocak I; Günal D; Sehitoglu MA
    J Voice; 2007 Nov; 21(6):735-40. PubMed ID: 16815671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Fundamental Frequency and Intensity Effects on Cepstral Measures in Vowels from Connected Speech of Speakers with Voice Disorders.
    Sampaio MC; Bohlender JE; Brockmann-Bauser M
    J Voice; 2021 May; 35(3):422-431. PubMed ID: 31883852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Comparison of Pitch Strength With Perceptual and Other Acoustic Metric Outcome Measures Following Medialization Laryngoplasty.
    Rubin AD; Jackson-Menaldi C; Kopf LM; Marks K; Skeffington J; Skowronski MD; Shrivastav R; Hunter EJ
    J Voice; 2019 Sep; 33(5):795-800. PubMed ID: 29773324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Acoustic and perceptual parameters relating to connected speech are more reliable measures of hoarseness than parameters relating to sustained vowels.
    Halberstam B
    ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec; 2004; 66(2):70-3. PubMed ID: 15162004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Classification of dysphonic voice: acoustic and auditory-perceptual measures.
    Eadie TL; Doyle PC
    J Voice; 2005 Mar; 19(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 15766846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Severity of voice disorders in children: correlations between perceptual and acoustic data.
    Lopes LW; Barbosa Lima IL; Alves Almeida LN; Cavalcante DP; de Almeida AA
    J Voice; 2012 Nov; 26(6):819.e7-12. PubMed ID: 23177753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. The Impact of Nasalance on Cepstral Peak Prominence and Harmonics-to-Noise Ratio.
    Madill C; Nguyen DD; Yick-Ning Cham K; Novakovic D; McCabe P
    Laryngoscope; 2019 Aug; 129(8):E299-E304. PubMed ID: 30585334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Acoustic Voice Quality Index as a Potential Tool for Voice Screening.
    Faham M; Laukkanen AM; Ikävalko T; Rantala L; Geneid A; Holmqvist-Jämsén S; Ruusuvirta K; Pirilä S
    J Voice; 2021 Mar; 35(2):226-232. PubMed ID: 31582330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. The Effect of Moving Window on Acoustic Analysis.
    Shu M; Jiang JJ; Willey M
    J Voice; 2016 Jan; 30(1):5-10. PubMed ID: 25998407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Acoustic Voice Analysis of Young Turkish Speakers.
    Demirhan E; Unsal EM; Yilmaz C; Ertan E
    J Voice; 2016 May; 30(3):378.e21-5. PubMed ID: 26223964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Acoustic measures of dysphonic severity across and within voice types.
    Wolfe V; Fitch J; Martin D
    Folia Phoniatr Logop; 1997; 49(6):292-9. PubMed ID: 9415734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.