Home Your basket
• Malt lymphoma of the orbi...
   Price 10.50 €
• A case of laryngeal sialo...
   Price 10.50 €
• Metastatic angiosarcoma t...
   Price 5.50 €
• Necrotizing external otit...
   Price 10.50 €
• The expanding domain of i...
   Price 10.50 €
• Stuttering and Tourette’s...
   Price 5.50 €
• Experimental study on sim...
   Price 10.50 €
• Benign paroxysmal vertigo...
   Price 8.50 €
• Lingual granuloma of preg...
   Price 5.50 €
• Cervical lymph node metas...
   Price 8.50 €
• Retrosigmoid vestibular n...
   Price 5.50 €
• Total pharyngolayngectomy...
   Price 10.50 €
• Lipoma of the floor of th...
   Price 10.50 €
• Head and neck reconstruct...
   Price 10.50 €
• Non-traumatic nasal septa...
   Price 8.50 €
• The nasal framework in rh...
   Price 10.50 €
• Usher type I syndrome in ...
   Price 10.50 €
• Audit of headache followi...
   Price 5.50 €
• Notes on voice and speech...
   Price 8.50 €
• Changing patterns of bucc...
   Price 10.50 €
• Defects in accuracy of th...
   Price 10.50 €
• A survey of current wound...
   Price 5.50 €
• Determination of oesophag...
   Price 10.50 €
• Cochlear implantation in ...
   Price 10.50 €
• Gastro-oesophageal reflux...
   Price 8.50 €
• Sphenochoanal polyp: Repo...
   Price 5.50 €
• Giant form of infantile m...
   Price 8.50 €
• Early PTH assay after tot...
   Price 10.50 €
• Feasibility study of sept...
   Price 10.50 €
• Social integration 15 yea...
   Price 14.00 €
• Transgender voice and com...
   Price 12.00 €
• Vestibular neuritis: Eval...
   Price 14.00 €
• Bilateral cleft lip and c...
   Price 14.00 €
• Develop­ment of an osteos...
   Price 8.50 €
• Nasal glioma, diagnosis i...
   Price 12.00 €
• Contribution of the study...
   Price 10.50 €

Total Order 342.50 €

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 Order
o Issue N# 1 - 2011 o

PHONIATRICS

Context influence on the perception of dysphonia: when the knowledge of the patient’s clinical state can modify the results of perceptual voice quality assess­ment


Authors : Ghio A, Merienne S, Giovanni A. (Marseille)

Ref. : Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol. 2011;132,1:9-17.

Article published in french
Downloadable PDF document french



Summary : Two experiments were conducted to examine how knowledge of the patient’s clinical state affects the results of perceptual voice quality assessment performed by specialists in voice therapy. This study involved 53 patients with a dysphonia. For each speaker, we selected a pair of recordings made in different circumstances. These pairs of voices were presented to seven listeners (ENT surgeons or speech therapists). The task was to perceptually compare the severity of the dysphonia between the 2 recordings of the pair. Stimuli were presented first in a blind test, then several weeks later with accompanying information about the patient; in particular, whether the voice was pre- or post- treatment was explicitly specified. We balanced this artificial contextual information in order to (α) reinforce the blind judgment (for example, voices perceived as better in the blind test were indicated as post treatment); (β) be inconsistent (in a clinical point of view) compared to the blind test (for example, voices perceived as more disordered during the blind test were indicated as post treatment). Results revealed that in the clinical-consistent context α, the preference was amplified in a significant way. In clinical-inconsistent condition β, we observed an inhibition effect or a change of decision. In this condi­tion, the judgment was more dependant on the contextual information (pre/post treatment) than on the auditory sensation obtained in blind condition. These findings are discussed with reference to results in the literature on visual, olfactory or audi­tory perception in context. In the frame of perceptual voice assess­ment, results revealed that only blind tests can provide reliable results.


Price : 10.50 €      order
|


Subscribe online - Pay by credit card!


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