Home Your basket
• Actinomycosis of the midd...
   Price 5.50 €
• How to manage post staped...
   Price 5.50 €
• Mucoepidermoid carcinomas...
   Price 10.50 €
• Necrotizing external otit...
   Price 10.50 €
• Time-intensity trade of b...
   Price 10.50 €
• Esophageal foreign body: ...
   Price 5.50 €
• Ossiculoplasty with hydro...
   Price 10.50 €
• Cochlear implantation in ...
   Price 12.50 €
• High click stimulus repet...
   Price 10.50 €
• Dysphonia and cervical hy...
   Price 5.50 €
• Marginal indications for ...
   Price 12.50 €
• Metastatic angiosarcoma t...
   Price 5.50 €
• Congenital bilateral choa...
   Price 5.50 €
• Pathophysiology, assessme...
   Price 12.50 €
• Surgery of the semicircul...
   Price 12.50 €
• Reconstruction after hemi...
   Price 14.00 €
• Protruding ears...
   Price 8.50 €
• Exploration of the otolit...
   Price 10.50 €
• Chronitis tonsillitis...
   Price 8.50 €
• «Mini-rhinoplasty»...
   Price 10.50 €
• Pseudoaneurysm of the int...
   Price 5.50 €
• Malignant melanoma of the...
   Price 10.50 €
• Frontal sinus osteoma com...
   Price 5.50 €
• Inflammatory pathology an...
   Price 10.50 €
• Occult otologic fistulas ...
   Price 5.50 €
• Navigation in head and ne...
   Price 10.50 €
• Migrating hypopharyngeal ...
   Price 5.50 €
• The effect of the speaker...
   Price 10.50 €
• Minimising radiation dose...
   Price 5.50 €
• Defects in accuracy of th...
   Price 10.50 €
• Treatment of children wit...
   Price 8.50 €
• Paediatric airway endosco...
   Price 5.50 €
• Endoscopic scale for eval...
   Price 8.50 €
• Rhinophyma in a black afr...
   Price 5.50 €

Total Order 295.50 €

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