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 *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17074463)

  • 1. Artificial neural network-based classification to screen for dysphonia using psychoacoustic scaling of acoustic voice features.
    Linder R; Albers AE; Hess M; Pöppl SJ; Schönweiler R
    J Voice; 2008 Mar; 22(2):155-63. PubMed ID: 17074463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Toward improved ecological validity in the acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: combining continuous speech and sustained vowels.
    Maryn Y; Corthals P; Van Cauwenberge P; Roy N; De Bodt M
    J Voice; 2010 Sep; 24(5):540-55. PubMed ID: 19883993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Toward the development of an objective index of dysphonia severity: a four-factor acoustic model.
    Awan SN; Roy N
    Clin Linguist Phon; 2006; 20(1):35-49. PubMed ID: 16393797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Cepstral peak prominence: a more reliable measure of dysphonia.
    Heman-Ackah YD; Heuer RJ; Michael DD; Ostrowski R; Horman M; Baroody MM; Hillenbrand J; Sataloff RT
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol; 2003 Apr; 112(4):324-33. PubMed ID: 12731627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Acoustic prediction of voice type in women with functional dysphonia.
    Awan SN; Roy N
    J Voice; 2005 Jun; 19(2):268-82. PubMed ID: 15907441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Differences in self-rated, perceived, and acoustic voice qualities between high- and low-fatigue groups.
    Cho SW; Yin CS; Park YB; Park YJ
    J Voice; 2011 Sep; 25(5):544-52. PubMed ID: 21051198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Psychoacoustic scaling of acoustic voice parameters by multicenter voice ratings].
    Schönweiler R; Wübbelt P; Hess M; Ptok M
    Laryngorhinootologie; 2001 Mar; 80(3):117-22. PubMed ID: 11320872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Objective assessment of pediatric voice disorders with the acoustic voice quality index.
    Reynolds V; Buckland A; Bailey J; Lipscombe J; Nathan E; Vijayasekaran S; Kelly R; Maryn Y; French N
    J Voice; 2012 Sep; 26(5):672.e1-7. PubMed ID: 22632794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Automatic intelligibility assessment of speakers after laryngeal cancer by means of acoustic modeling.
    Bocklet T; Riedhammer K; Nöth E; Eysholdt U; Haderlein T
    J Voice; 2012 May; 26(3):390-7. PubMed ID: 21820272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An acoustic-perceptual study of vocal tremor.
    Anand S; Shrivastav R; Wingate JM; Chheda NN
    J Voice; 2012 Nov; 26(6):811.e1-7. PubMed ID: 22921293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Acoustic parameters for classification of breathiness in continuous speech according to the GRBAS scale.
    Stráník A; Čmejla R; Vokřál J
    J Voice; 2014 Sep; 28(5):653.e9-653.e17. PubMed ID: 24755168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of subjective assessment of voice disorders and objective voice measurement.
    Hanschmann H; Lohmann A; Berger R
    Folia Phoniatr Logop; 2011; 63(2):83-7. PubMed ID: 20938187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of Rater's reliability on perceptual evaluation of different types of voice sample.
    Law T; Kim JH; Lee KY; Tang EC; Lam JH; van Hasselt AC; Tong MC
    J Voice; 2012 Sep; 26(5):666.e13-21. PubMed ID: 22243971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Acoustic fidelity of internet bandwidths for measures used in speech and voice disorders.
    Xue SA; Lower A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2010 Sep; 128(3):1366-76. PubMed ID: 20815471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Validity of jitter measures in non-quasi-periodic voices. Part II: the effect of noise.
    Manfredi C; Giordano A; Schoentgen J; Fraj S; Bocchi L; Dejonckere P
    Logoped Phoniatr Vocol; 2011 Jul; 36(2):78-89. PubMed ID: 21609247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Perceptual structure of adductor spasmodic dysphonia and its acoustic correlates.
    Cannito MP; Doiuchi M; Murry T; Woodson GE
    J Voice; 2012 Nov; 26(6):818.e5-13. PubMed ID: 23177751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.