Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study was to determine (a) diagnostic accuracy of acoustic measures of glottal stop production (GSP; intensity differences, slopes, complete voicing cessation) to distinguish between unilateral vocal fold paresis/paralysis (UVFP) patients and controls; (b) if acoustic measures of GSP significantly correlated with an acoustic measure of voice disorder severity, acoustic voice quality index (AVQI); and (c) if acoustic measures from another type of voicing cessation, voiceless consonant production, also significantly differed between groups.
UNASSIGNED: Ninety-seven patients with unilateral paresis/paralysis and 35 controls with normal laryngostroboscopic signs produced two sets of five repeated [i] and four repeated [isi]. Tokens were randomized by type between groups and analyzed blinded using a customized Praat program that computed intensity differences and slopes between vowel maxima and glottal stop minima for inter-[i] tokens and vowel maxima and voiceless consonant minima for intra-[isi] tokens. The number of voicing cessations for inter-[i] tokens was obtained.
UNASSIGNED: Onset and offset intensity differences and number of voicing cessations from inter-[i] tokens had the greatest areas under the curve (.854, .856, and .835, respectively). Correlation coefficients were significant (p < .01) between AVQI and all GSP acoustic measures with weak/medium effect sizes. No significant differences were found between controls and participants with UVFP for acoustic measures from intra-[isi].
UNASSIGNED: Acoustic GSP measures demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy and some relationship to severity of voice disorder. No significant differences in acoustic measures for medial voiceless fricative consonants between controls and participants with UVFP suggested that voicing cessation for voiceless fricatives differs from voicing cessation for GSP.
UNASSIGNED: Ninety-seven patients with unilateral paresis/paralysis and 35 controls with normal laryngostroboscopic signs produced two sets of five repeated [i] and four repeated [isi]. Tokens were randomized by type between groups and analyzed blinded using a customized Praat program that computed intensity differences and slopes between vowel maxima and glottal stop minima for inter-[i] tokens and vowel maxima and voiceless consonant minima for intra-[isi] tokens. The number of voicing cessations for inter-[i] tokens was obtained.
UNASSIGNED: Onset and offset intensity differences and number of voicing cessations from inter-[i] tokens had the greatest areas under the curve (.854, .856, and .835, respectively). Correlation coefficients were significant (p < .01) between AVQI and all GSP acoustic measures with weak/medium effect sizes. No significant differences were found between controls and participants with UVFP for acoustic measures from intra-[isi].
UNASSIGNED: Acoustic GSP measures demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy and some relationship to severity of voice disorder. No significant differences in acoustic measures for medial voiceless fricative consonants between controls and participants with UVFP suggested that voicing cessation for voiceless fricatives differs from voicing cessation for GSP.
摘要：
■这项研究的目的是确定（a）声门停止产生的声学测量的诊断准确性（GSP；强度差异，斜坡,完全停止发声）以区分单侧声带麻痹/麻痹（UVFP）患者和对照组；（b）如果GSP的声学测量与语音障碍严重程度的声学测量显着相关，声学语音质量指数(AVQI)；和(C)如果声学测量来自另一种类型的发声停止，无声辅音的制作，组间也有显著差异。
■97例单侧轻瘫/麻痹患者和35例正常喉镜征象的对照患者产生两组5例重复[i]和4例重复[isi]。令牌在组之间按类型随机分配，并使用定制的Praat程序进行盲化分析，该程序计算了[i]间令牌的元音最大值和声门停止最小值之间的强度差异和斜率，以及[isi]内令牌的元音最大值和无声辅音最小值。获得了[i]间令牌的发声终止数。
■来自[i]间令牌的开始和偏移强度差异以及发声闭合次数在曲线下的面积最大（分别为.854、.856和.835）。AVQI和具有弱/中等效应大小的所有GSP声学测量之间的相关系数显着（p<.01）。在对照和UVFP参与者之间，内部[isi]的声学测量没有发现显着差异。
■声学GSP措施显示出良好的诊断准确性，并与语音障碍的严重程度有关。在对照组和UVFP参与者之间，对内侧无声擦音辅音的声学测量没有显着差异，这表明无声擦音的发声停止与GSP的发声停止不同。
■97例单侧轻瘫/麻痹患者和35例正常喉镜征象的对照患者产生两组5例重复[i]和4例重复[isi]。令牌在组之间按类型随机分配，并使用定制的Praat程序进行盲化分析，该程序计算了[i]间令牌的元音最大值和声门停止最小值之间的强度差异和斜率，以及[isi]内令牌的元音最大值和无声辅音最小值。获得了[i]间令牌的发声终止数。
■来自[i]间令牌的开始和偏移强度差异以及发声闭合次数在曲线下的面积最大（分别为.854、.856和.835）。AVQI和具有弱/中等效应大小的所有GSP声学测量之间的相关系数显着（p<.01）。在对照和UVFP参与者之间，内部[isi]的声学测量没有发现显着差异。
■声学GSP措施显示出良好的诊断准确性，并与语音障碍的严重程度有关。在对照组和UVFP参与者之间，对内侧无声擦音辅音的声学测量没有显着差异，这表明无声擦音的发声停止与GSP的发声停止不同。
