Comparison of Labial and Mechanical Interruption for Measurement of Aerodynamic Parameters

Summary Objectives/Hypothesis To directly compare the mechanical and labial interruption techniques of measuring subglottal pressure (Ps ), mean flow rate (MFR), and laryngeal resistance (RL ). Methods Thirty-four subjects performed 10 trials with both mechanical and labial interruption. Ps and MFR...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of voice 2011-05, Vol.25 (3), p.337-341
Main Authors: Chapin, William J, Hoffman, Matthew R, Rieves, Adam L, Jiang, Jack J
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Catheterization
Comparative Studies
Flowmeters
Humans
Labial interruption
Laryngeal airflow
Laryngeal resistance
Larynx - physiology
Measurement
Mechanical interruption
Otolaryngology
Otolaryngology - instrumentation
Otolaryngology - methods
Phonation
Pressure
Reproducibility of Results
Respiration
Rheology
Speech Acoustics
Subglottal pressure
Time Factors
Voice
Voice Disorders
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Summary Objectives/Hypothesis To directly compare the mechanical and labial interruption techniques of measuring subglottal pressure (Ps ), mean flow rate (MFR), and laryngeal resistance (RL ). Methods Thirty-four subjects performed 10 trials with both mechanical and labial interruption. Ps and MFR were recorded, whereas RL was calculated by dividing Ps by MFR. Coefficients of variation were calculated to compare intrasubject precision. A subset of 10 subjects performed the tasks twice with 30 minutes between sessions. Bland-Altman plots were used to determine intrasubject repeatability for each of the methods. Results Mechanical interruption produced coefficients of variation for Ps , MFR, and RL of 0.0995, 0.127, and 0.129, respectively. Labial interruption produced coefficients of variation of 0.102, 0.147, and 0.169, respectively. P values were 0.824 for Ps , 0.159 for MFR, and 0.043 for RL . The Bland-Altman plots revealed comparable repeatability between the two methods. The 95% confidence intervals of the Bland-Altman plots for mechanical interruption were (−0.050, 0.072), (−0.543, 1.832), and (−2.498, 10.528) for MFR, Ps , and RL . Confidence intervals for labial interruption were (−0.018, 0.031), (0.057, 2.442), and (−3.267, 10.595) for MFR, Ps, and RL. Conclusions Mechanical interruption produced higher precision when measuring RL because of more reliable airflow measurements. Mechanical and labial interruption showed comparable repeatability. Further research into using mechanical interruption clinically is warranted.
ISSN:0892-1997
1873-4588
1557-8658
DOI:10.1016/j.jvoice.2010.01.004