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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24815277)

  • 21. Exploring the Clinical Utility of Relative Fundamental Frequency as an Objective Measure of Vocal Hyperfunction.
    Roy N; Fetrow RA; Merrill RM; Dromey C
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2016 Oct; 59(5):1002-1017. PubMed ID: 27768175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Subglottal resonances of adult male and female native speakers of American English.
    Lulich SM; Morton JR; Arsikere H; Sommers MS; Leung GK; Alwan A
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2012 Oct; 132(4):2592-602. PubMed ID: 23039452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Effects of microphone type on acoustic measures of voice.
    Parsa V; Jamieson DG; Pretty BR
    J Voice; 2001 Sep; 15(3):331-43. PubMed ID: 11575630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The difference between first and second harmonic amplitudes correlates between glottal airflow and neck-surface accelerometer signals during phonation.
    Mehta DD; Espinoza VM; Van Stan JH; Zañartu M; Hillman RE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2019 May; 145(5):EL386. PubMed ID: 31153299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Natural Voice Use in Patients With Voice Disorders and Vocally Healthy Speakers Based on 2 Days Voice Accumulator Information From a Database.
    Södersten M; Salomão GL; McAllister A; Ternström S
    J Voice; 2015 Sep; 29(5):646.e1-9. PubMed ID: 26073776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Individual Monitoring of Vocal Effort With Relative Fundamental Frequency: Relationships With Aerodynamics and Listener Perception.
    Lien YA; Michener CM; Eadie TL; Stepp CE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2015 Jun; 58(3):566-75. PubMed ID: 25675090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [Comparison of the results of acoustic analysis of the voice recorded by different methods].
    Chernobel'skiĭ SI
    Vestn Otorinolaringol; 2014; (1):41-3. PubMed ID: 24577031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Combined Use of Standard and Throat Microphones for Measurement of Acoustic Voice Parameters and Voice Categorization.
    Uloza V; Padervinskis E; Uloziene I; Saferis V; Verikas A
    J Voice; 2015 Sep; 29(5):552-9. PubMed ID: 25795349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Changes in Relative Fundamental Frequency Under Increased Cognitive Load in Individuals With Healthy Voices.
    Dahl KL; Stepp CE
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2021 Apr; 64(4):1189-1196. PubMed ID: 33788635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Effects of low-pass filtering on acoustic analysis of voice.
    MacCallum JK; Olszewski AE; Zhang Y; Jiang JJ
    J Voice; 2011 Jan; 25(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 20346621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Feasibility of measurement of a voice range profile with a semi-occluded vocal tract.
    Titze IR; Hunter EJ
    Logoped Phoniatr Vocol; 2011 Apr; 36(1):32-9. PubMed ID: 21244326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The impact of vocal hyperfunction on relative fundamental frequency during voicing offset and onset.
    Stepp CE; Hillman RE; Heaton JT
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2010 Oct; 53(5):1220-6. PubMed ID: 20643798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The Effectiveness of Low-Level Light Therapy in Attenuating Vocal Fatigue.
    Kagan LS; Heaton JT
    J Voice; 2017 May; 31(3):384.e15-384.e23. PubMed ID: 27839705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Refining algorithmic estimation of relative fundamental frequency: Accounting for sample characteristics and fundamental frequency estimation method.
    Vojtech JM; Segina RK; Buckley DP; Kolin KR; Tardif MC; Noordzij JP; Stepp CE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2019 Nov; 146(5):3184. PubMed ID: 31795681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Flow Glottogram Characteristics and Perceived Degree of Phonatory Pressedness.
    Millgård M; Fors T; Sundberg J
    J Voice; 2016 May; 30(3):287-92. PubMed ID: 26001499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Vocal fold kinematics and relative fundamental frequency as a function of obstruent type and speaker age.
    Park Y; Wang F; Díaz-Cádiz M; Vojtech JM; Groll MD; Stepp CE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2021 Apr; 149(4):2189. PubMed ID: 33940922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Validation of an Algorithm for Semi-automated Estimation of Voice Relative Fundamental Frequency.
    Lien YS; Heller Murray ES; Calabrese CR; Michener CM; Van Stan JH; Mehta DD; Hillman RE; Noordzij JP; Stepp CE
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol; 2017 Oct; 126(10):712-716. PubMed ID: 28849664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Effects of spectral content on Horii Oral-Nasal Coupling scores in children.
    Varghese LA; Mendoza JO; Braden MN; Stepp CE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2014 Sep; 136(3):1295. PubMed ID: 25190402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Effects of vocal intensity and vowel type on cepstral analysis of voice.
    Awan SN; Giovinco A; Owens J
    J Voice; 2012 Sep; 26(5):670.e15-20. PubMed ID: 22480754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Uncertainty of speech level parameters measured with a contact-sensor-based device and a headworn microphone.
    Astolfi A; Castellana A; Carullo A; Puglisi GE
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2018 Jun; 143(6):EL496. PubMed ID: 29960427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.