Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2015
Comparison of Vocal Vibration-Dose Measures for Potential-Damage Risk Criteria.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Titze Ingo R, Hunter Eric J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Schoolteachers have become a benchmark population for the study of occupational voice use. A decade of vibration-dose studies on the teacher population allows a comparison to be made between specific dose measures for eventual assessment of damage risk.
METHOD: Vibration dosimetry is reformulated with the inclusion of collision stress. Two methods of estimating amplitude of vocal-fold vibration are compared to capture variations in vocal intensity. Energy loss from collision is added to the energy-dissipation dose. An equal-energy-dissipation criterion is defined and used on the teacher corpus as a potential-damage risk criterion.
RESULTS: Comparison of time-, cycle-, distance-, and energy-dose calculations for 57 teachers reveals a progression in information content in the ability to capture variations in duration, speaking pitch, and vocal intensity. The energy-dissipation dose carries the greatest promise in capturing excessive tissue stress and collision but also the greatest liability, due to uncertainty in parameters. Cycle dose is least correlated with the other doses.
CONCLUSION: As a first guide to damage risk in excessive voice use, the equal-energy-dissipation dose criterion can be used to structure trade-off relations between loudness, adduction, and duration of speech.
METHOD: Vibration dosimetry is reformulated with the inclusion of collision stress. Two methods of estimating amplitude of vocal-fold vibration are compared to capture variations in vocal intensity. Energy loss from collision is added to the energy-dissipation dose. An equal-energy-dissipation criterion is defined and used on the teacher corpus as a potential-damage risk criterion.
RESULTS: Comparison of time-, cycle-, distance-, and energy-dose calculations for 57 teachers reveals a progression in information content in the ability to capture variations in duration, speaking pitch, and vocal intensity. The energy-dissipation dose carries the greatest promise in capturing excessive tissue stress and collision but also the greatest liability, due to uncertainty in parameters. Cycle dose is least correlated with the other doses.
CONCLUSION: As a first guide to damage risk in excessive voice use, the equal-energy-dissipation dose criterion can be used to structure trade-off relations between loudness, adduction, and duration of speech.