Home Your basket
• Extraction of the esophag...
   Price 8.50 €
• Cemento-ossifying fibroma...
   Price 8.50 €
• Quality of life after rad...
   Price 10.50 €
• Otoplasty for prominent e...
   Price 8.50 €
• Cytokines profile in cyst...
   Price 10.50 €
• Construction and validati...
   Price 10.50 €
• MIF in Head and Neck canc...
   Price 10.50 €
• Management of peritonsill...
   Price 5.50 €
• Otologic surgery in HIV-i...
   Price 8.50 €
• Notes on voice and speech...
   Price 8.50 €
• Nasal glioma, diagnosis i...
   Price 12.00 €
• Treatment of severe epist...
   Price 5.50 €
• Side-to-end hypoglossal-f...
   Price 10.50 €
• Transsexuality: Speech th...
   Price 10.50 €
• Hearing aid : practical a...
   Price 8.50 €
• Laryngeal schwannoma: A c...
   Price 8.50 €
• The expanding domain of i...
   Price 10.50 €
• Active bone conduction im...
   Price 12.00 €
• How to take a mastoid and...
   Price 8.50 €
• Long-term results of faci...
   Price 10.50 €
• A survey of current wound...
   Price 5.50 €
• Social integration 15 yea...
   Price 14.00 €
• Metastatic angiosarcoma t...
   Price 5.50 €
• Brain stem cavernous angi...
   Price 8.50 €
• Correlation between the r...
   Price 12.50 €
• Cranial fasciitis of chil...
   Price 8.50 €
• Recurrent mandibular amel...
   Price 12.50 €
• Hyperglycemia after intra...
   Price 8.50 €
• A post-styloid mass revea...
   Price 12.50 €
• Spontaneous cholesteatoma...
   Price 8.50 €
• Adult laryngeal cavernous...
   Price 5.50 €
• Similarities between reti...
   Price 14.00 €
• Utility of positron emiss...
   Price 8.50 €

Total Order 311.50 €

contents
2019
   N# 1 |
2018
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2017
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2016
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2015
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2014
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2013
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2012
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2011
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2010
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2009
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2008
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2007
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2006
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2005
   N# | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2004
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2003
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2002
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2001
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2000
   N# | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1999
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1998
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
1997
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1996
   N# 4 | 5 |

Click on the number of the review to see the content
Teaching bulletin CME
List of all teaching bulletins CME.
Editor reading committee
Editor reading committee.
To publish...
Instructions for authors
Archives Press and Books
Select of books and press articles.
Mailing list
News information letter.
Subscription prices


If you wish to adjust the size of the displayed characters, click in the high menu on "Your account" and choose the desired size.



  Contents > Previous page > Article detail print Download
o Issue N# 4 - 1999 o

PHONIATRICS

Value of the relative phonetogram (RP) for voice assessment


Authors : C. Hilgenheger, J. Sarfati, E. Reyt, C. Sittel, H. E. Eckel (Köln)

Ref. : Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol. 1999;120,4:231-238.

Article published in french



Summary : The phonetogram in a recognized element of voice evaluation, but its relation to perceptual voice quality is unclarified. The phonetograms area is easy to mesure since the existence of efficient computer software. So information about frequency and intensity range can be united in one single parameter. The individual phonetogram area in relation to a gender- and training-specific normal value constitutes the "relative phonetogram (RP)".
A prospective evaluation of the relative phonetogram was performed by means of a statistical analysis of its correlation to perceptual voice assessment (grade/rough/breathy) and to maximal phonation time. The acoustic parameters jitter, shimmer, SNR were examined in the same way, to allow for comparison of the RP's importance with the importance of common "objective" features in the identic group of patients. 114 patients with two subsets are included : 61 patients after partial laryngectomy (laser or conventional surgery), 53 patients with différent glottic pathologies. The perceptive evaluation was done by a trained jury of an ENT-specialist and a speech therapist. The phonetogram and the maximal phonation time were measured by a trained medical student with regard of the examination references publicated by the Union of European Phoniatrics. The computer software for area measurement was MSImageProPlus, the one for sound analysis was Dr. Speech (Tiger Electronics). Statistical program : SPSS 8.0.
Results : the comparison between the two subsets of patients shows lower RPs for partial laryngectomy than for other patients in all degrees of hoarseness. In both subsets there is a correlation between RP and hoarseness values : the average values of RP differ significantly in dependence of grande. This is even more marked for the patients after laryngeal surgery. Furthermore high RPs are only present in patients with (relativly) high maximal phonation time, and mean RP correlates with maximal phonation time. A correlation between the parameters of sound analysis and the score of "grade" exists, but is not as marked as for the RP.
Conclusion : the significance of the RP's mean value for subsets of 15-20 patients has been demonstrated. It is justified to interpret a certain variance of this parameter as difference in the degreee of hoarseness. In this context, the importance of the mean RP is higher than the importance of jitter, shimmer, SNR (when measured with the above mentioned computer program, which allows no evaluation of parameter combinations). Therefore this parameter could be interesting for comparisions of dysphonic patients, for instance after glottic cancer treatment.



|


Subscribe online - Pay by credit card!


© Copyright 1999-2024 - Revue de Laryngologie   Réalisation - Hébergement ELIDEE