Home Your basket
• Solitary fibrous tumor of...
   Price 14.00 €
• Viral assumption and inve...
   Price 10.50 €
• Reports to the General As...
   Price 10.50 €
• Massive bone dystrophic l...
   Price 5.50 €
• High click stimulus repet...
   Price 10.50 €
• New indications for heari...
   Price 8.50 €
• Implementation of the Eur...
   Price 10.50 €
• Mucosal melanomas of the ...
   Price 8.50 €
• Tympanoplasty: Experience...
   Price 12.00 €
• Distortion product otoaco...
   Price 10.50 €
• Stingy speakers....
   Price 5.50 €
• Metastatic angiosarcoma t...
   Price 5.50 €
• Tuberculosis of the laryn...
   Price 5.50 €
• Giant metastasis invading...
   Price 5.50 €
• A protocol for the evalua...
   Price 8.50 €
• Complete branchial cleft ...
   Price 5.50 €
• Are we sectioning the coc...
   Price 10.50 €
• Facial paralysis: Functio...
   Price 10.50 €
• Salvage composite resecti...
   Price 10.50 €
• Audit of headache followi...
   Price 5.50 €
• Hearing loss and vestibul...
   Price 10.50 €
• Arachnoid granulations of...
   Price 10.50 €
• Proposition of adaptation...
   Price 10.50 €
• What is the effect of diz...
   Price 10.50 €
• Partial hearing recovery ...
   Price 5.50 €
• Results of alginate and h...
   Price 10.50 €
• Laryngeal cryptococcosis ...
   Price 8.50 €
• Necrotizing external otit...
   Price 10.50 €
• Ectopic thyroid basi-ling...
   Price 10.50 €
• Cottle's technique septop...
   Price 5.50 €
• The application of tusso...
   Price 10.50 €
• A comparative acoustic st...
   Price 5.50 €
• Zenker’s diverticulum in ...
   Price 8.50 €
• Laryngeal neuroendocrin c...
   Price 5.50 €
• Recurrences of pleomorphi...
   Price 10.50 €
• Laryngeal papillomatosis ...
   Price 5.50 €
• Retropharyngeal abscess i...
   Price 10.50 €
• Acoustic study of sustain...
   Price 10.50 €

Total Order 334.00 €

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