scholarly journals Some Relationships between Vocal Effort and Intraoral Air Pressure

1973 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 296-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. H. Colton ◽  
W. S. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Air Pressure ◽  
Vocal Effort ◽  
Intraoral Air Pressure

Correlates of Turbulent Noise Production for Speech

1967 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Hixon ◽  
Fred D. Minifie ◽  
Charles A. Tait
Keyword(s):  
Sound Pressure Level ◽  
Sound Pressure ◽  
Power Laws ◽  
Pressure Level ◽  
Air Pressure ◽  
Voice Production ◽  
Volume Rate ◽  
Intraoral Air Pressure ◽  
Noise Production ◽  
Parameters Of Interest

Intraoral air pressure, volume rate of airflow, and sound pressure level were measured during /∫/ and /s/ productions of two speakers. In addition numerical estimates of the loudness of the productions were made by each speaker and by a group of judges. The power laws governing the relations among the parameters of interest are discussed and the results are compared with available data on voice production.

Levator Veli Palatini Muscle Activity in Relation to Intraoral Air Pressure Variation in Cleft Palate Subjects

1995 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 376-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
David P. Kuehn ◽  
Jerald B. Moon
Keyword(s):  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Air Pressure ◽  
Levator Muscle ◽  
Emg Activity ◽  
High Activation ◽  
Levator Veli Palatini ◽  
Activation Level ◽  
High Activation Level ◽  
Intraoral Air Pressure ◽  
Total Activation

A comparison of the ranges of levator veli palatini EMG activity for speech versus a nonspeech task for subjects with cleft palate was the focus of this study. EMG values are also compared with subjects without cleft palate obtained in a previous study. Hooked-wire electrodes were inserted into the levator muscle of five adult subjects with cleft palate exhibiting mild hypernasality. Intraoral air pressure was measured concurrently. A blowing task was used to determine the subject's operating range for the levator muscle. Both the nonspeech and speech tasks were designed to sample the widest possible ranges of levator EMG activity. It was found that the subjects with cleft palate used a relatively high activation level for the levator muscle during speech, in relation to their total activation range, compared with the subjects without cleft palate. Implications are discussed In relation to possible anatomic and physiologic differences for cleft palate subjects compared to normal.

Intraoral Air Pressure Discrimination by Normal-Speaking Subjects

1987 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 196-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
William N. Williams ◽  
W.S. Brown, Jr. ◽  
G.E. Turner
Keyword(s):  
Air Pressure ◽  
Intraoral Air Pressure ◽  
Normal Speaking

Oscillatory movements of the velum: A factor of intraoral air pressure

1976 ◽  
Vol 59 (S1) ◽  
pp. S84-S85
Author(s):  
W. N. Williams ◽  
W. S. Brown ◽  
B. Hildebrand
Keyword(s):  
Air Pressure ◽  
Intraoral Air Pressure

Intraoral Air Pressure Discrimination under Conditions of Experimental Velopharyngeal Insufficiency

2005 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 297-303
Author(s):  
William N. Williams ◽  
Paul W. Wharton ◽  
Martha F. Paulk ◽  
William S. Brown ◽  
Glenn E. Turner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Transducer ◽  
Difference Limen ◽  
Air Pressure ◽  
Velopharyngeal Insufficiency ◽  
Hole Size ◽  
Pressure Load ◽  
Nasal Cavities ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Intraoral Air Pressure ◽  
The Difference

Objective This study assessed a single subject's ability to detect the difference limen (DLs) for his self-generated intraoral air pressure while his oral and nasal cavities were experimentally coupled. Method The subject, a 46-year-old man, uses a speech bulb prosthesis to cover an unrepaired cleft of his hard and soft palates. The subject's oral and nasal cavities were experimentally coupled by drilling different size holes through the speech-bulb component of the prosthesis to approximate conditions of velopharyngeal insufficiency. There were four hole-size conditions (10, 15, 20, and 30 mm2), a no-prosthesis condition, and pre- and postbaseline conditions with the prosthesis intact. The subject blew into a tube connected to a pressure transducer and was presented with a series of paired pressure loads. The first pressure load of each pair was the referent (1, 3, or 5 cm H2O), and the second was a preselected comparator load of a different amount. The subject blew into the tube with sufficient force to center the voltage meter's needle at the zero mark. The subject then reported whether the second pressure load required more, less, or equal breath pressure, compared with the referent pressure load of that pair. Results Size of the hole coupling the oral/nasal cavities did not significantly affect the subject's difference limen. Conclusion Experimental coupling of the oral/nasal cavities did not affect this subject's ability to detect differences in his self-generated intraoral air pressure.

Lingual and Intraoral Air‐Pressure Variations as a Function of Vocal Intensity

1970 ◽  
Vol 47 (1A) ◽  
pp. 104-104
Author(s):  
W. S. Brown ◽  
Robert E. McGlone ◽  
William R. Proffit
Keyword(s):  
Air Pressure ◽  
Vocal Intensity ◽  
Intraoral Air Pressure
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document