128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26222946)
1. Auditory-perceptual evaluation of the degree of vocal deviation: correlation between the Visual Analogue Scale and Numerical Scale.
Martins PC; Couto TE; Gama AC
Codas; 2015; 27(3):279-84. PubMed ID: 26222946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Auditory-perceptual evaluation of rough and breathy voices: correspondence between analogical visual and numerical scale.
Baravieira PB; Brasolotto AG; Montagnoli AN; Silvério KC; Yamasaki R; Behlau M
Codas; 2016 Apr; 28(2):163-7. PubMed ID: 27191880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Auditory-perceptual Evaluation of Normal and Dysphonic Voices Using the Voice Deviation Scale.
Yamasaki R; Madazio G; Leão SHS; Padovani M; Azevedo R; Behlau M
J Voice; 2017 Jan; 31(1):67-71. PubMed ID: 26873420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. GRBAS and Cape-V scales: high reliability and consensus when applied at different times.
Nemr K; Simões-Zenari M; Cordeiro GF; Tsuji D; Ogawa AI; Ubrig MT; Menezes MH
J Voice; 2012 Nov; 26(6):812.e17-22. PubMed ID: 23026732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Speech tasks and interrater reliability in perceptual voice evaluation.
Lu FL; Matteson S
J Voice; 2014 Nov; 28(6):725-32. PubMed ID: 24841668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The role of experience on judgments of dysphonia.
Eadie TL; Kapsner M; Rosenzweig J; Waugh P; Hillel A; Merati A
J Voice; 2010 Sep; 24(5):564-73. PubMed ID: 19765949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Correlation among the dysphonia severity index (DSI), the RBH voice perceptual evaluation, and minimum glottal area in female patients with vocal fold nodules.
Hussein Gaber AG; Liang FY; Yang JS; Wang YJ; Zheng YQ
J Voice; 2014 Jan; 28(1):20-3. PubMed ID: 24275460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of disordered voice: the relationship between the correlation dimension (D2) and pre-/post-treatment change in perceived dysphonia severity.
Awan SN; Roy N; Jiang JJ
J Voice; 2010 May; 24(3):285-93. PubMed ID: 19502002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Acoustic analysis of four common voice diagnoses: moving toward disorder-specific assessment.
Gillespie AI; Dastolfo C; Magid N; Gartner-Schmidt J
J Voice; 2014 Sep; 28(5):582-8. PubMed ID: 24880672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Does the presence or location of graphic markers affect untrained listeners' ratings of severity of dysphonia?
Nagle KF; Helou LB; Solomon NP; Eadie TL
J Voice; 2014 Jul; 28(4):469-75. PubMed ID: 24629645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Perceptual evaluation of hypernasality, audible nasal airflow and speech understandability using ordinal and visual analogue scaling and their relation with nasalance scores.
Bettens K; Bruneel L; Maryn Y; De Bodt M; Luyten A; Van Lierde KM
J Commun Disord; 2018; 76():11-20. PubMed ID: 30071470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Consistency of voice frequency and perturbation measures in children using cepstral analyses: a movement toward increased recording stability.
Diercks GR; Ojha S; Infusino S; Maurer R; Hartnick CJ
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2013 Aug; 139(8):811-6. PubMed ID: 23949356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Automated acoustic analysis of task dependency in adductor spasmodic dysphonia versus muscle tension dysphonia.
Roy N; Mazin A; Awan SN
Laryngoscope; 2014 Mar; 124(3):718-24. PubMed ID: 23946147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Toward validation of the cepstral spectral index of dysphonia (CSID) as an objective treatment outcomes measure.
Peterson EA; Roy N; Awan SN; Merrill RM; Banks R; Tanner K
J Voice; 2013 Jul; 27(4):401-10. PubMed ID: 23809565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Task specificity in adductor spasmodic dysphonia versus muscle tension dysphonia.
Roy N; Gouse M; Mauszycki SC; Merrill RM; Smith ME
Laryngoscope; 2005 Feb; 115(2):311-6. PubMed ID: 15689757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Vocal characteristics during child development: perceptual-auditory and acoustic data.
Lopes LW; Lima IL; Azevedo EH; de Lima-Silva MF; Cavalcante DP; de Almeida LN; de Almeida AA
Folia Phoniatr Logop; 2013; 65(3):143-7. PubMed ID: 24296522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Toward a more quantitative measure to assess severity of dysphonia: preliminary observations.
Schaeffer N; Sidavi A
J Voice; 2010 Sep; 24(5):556-63. PubMed ID: 19616403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Clinical versus laboratory ratings of voice using the CAPE-V.
Solomon NP; Helou LB; Stojadinovic A
J Voice; 2011 Jan; 25(1):e7-14. PubMed ID: 20430573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
