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.
6. Development and perceptual assessment of a synthesizer of disordered voices. Fraj S; Schoentgen J; Grenez F J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2603-15. PubMed ID: 23039453 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Pathologic voice type and the acoustic prediction of severity. Martin D; Fitch J; Wolfe V J Speech Hear Res; 1995 Aug; 38(4):765-71. PubMed ID: 7474970 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effects of perceptual training based upon synthesized voice signals. Martin DP; Wolfe VI Percept Mot Skills; 1996 Dec; 83(3 Pt 2):1291-8. PubMed ID: 9017742 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effect of perceptual training on inexperienced listeners' judgments of dysphonic voice. Eadie TL; Baylor CR J Voice; 2006 Dec; 20(4):527-44. PubMed ID: 16324823 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Objective acoustic analysis of pathological voices from patients with vocal nodules and polyps. Jiang JJ; Zhang Y; MacCallum J; Sprecher A; Zhou L Folia Phoniatr Logop; 2009; 61(6):342-9. PubMed ID: 19864916 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Acoustic and perceptual measurements of roughness influencing judgments of pitch. Wolfe VI; Ratusnik DL J Speech Hear Disord; 1988 Feb; 53(1):15-22. PubMed ID: 3339863 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. When and why listeners disagree in voice quality assessment tasks. Kreiman J; Gerratt BR; Ito M J Acoust Soc Am; 2007 Oct; 122(4):2354-64. PubMed ID: 17902870 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Least mean square measures of voice perturbation. Milenkovic P J Speech Hear Res; 1987 Dec; 30(4):529-38. PubMed ID: 2961933 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Selection and combination of acoustic features for the description of pathologic voices. Michaelis D; Fröhlich M; Strube HW J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Mar; 103(3):1628-39. PubMed ID: 9514027 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Acoustic and linguistic factors affecting perceptual dissimilarity judgments of voices. Perrachione TK; Furbeck KT; Thurston EJ J Acoust Soc Am; 2019 Nov; 146(5):3384. PubMed ID: 31795676 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Variability in the digital voice analysis depending on the analyzed vocal, in normal patients and in patients with dysphonia]. Preciado López JA; Calzada Uriondo MG; Zabaleta López M; García Cano FJ Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp; 2000 Oct; 51(7):618-28. PubMed ID: 11270041 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The effect of visible speech in the perceptual rating of pathological voices. Martens JW; Versnel H; Dejonckere PH Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2007 Feb; 133(2):178-85. PubMed ID: 17309988 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Clinical relevance of speaking voice intensity effects on acoustic jitter and shimmer in children between 5;0 and 9;11 years. Brockmann-Bauser M; Beyer D; Bohlender JE Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2014 Dec; 78(12):2121-6. PubMed ID: 25441603 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Survey of Voice Acoustic Parameters in Iranian Female Teachers. Mohseni R; Sandoughdar N J Voice; 2016 Jul; 30(4):507.e1-5. PubMed ID: 26275636 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Spectrographic study of voice disorders: subharmonics]. Núñez Batalla F; Suárez Nieto C; Muñoz Pinto C; Baragaño Río L; Alvarez Zapico MJ; Martínez Ferreras A Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp; 2000; 51(1):52-6. PubMed ID: 10799933 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]