Home Your basket
• Mucosal melanomas of the ...
   Price 8.50 €
• Thyroid papillary microca...
   Price 10.50 €
• Partial allotransplantati...
   Price 10.50 €
• Nasal cutaneous cryptococ...
   Price 5.50 €
• Esthesioneuroblastoma in ...
   Price 8.00 €
• Vocal rehabilitation with...
   Price 10.50 €
• Management of cervical ce...
   Price 10.50 €
• Carcinogenesis of the eth...
   Price 10.50 €
• Vocalab: A new software f...
   Price 8.50 €
• Unilateral frontal sinus ...
   Price 8.50 €
• Hearing aid : practical a...
   Price 8.50 €
• Cervical lymph node metas...
   Price 8.50 €
• «Mini-rhinoplasty»...
   Price 10.50 €
• The effects of treatments...
   Price 14.00 €
• Covering of parotid and c...
   Price 14.00 €
• Predictive factors for su...
   Price 15.00 €
• Callas or the trajectory ...
   Price 10.50 €
• Skull vibratory test in p...
   Price 10.50 €
• Vestibular neuritis: aeti...
   Price 8.50 €
• Metastatic angiosarcoma t...
   Price 5.50 €
• Sinonasal hemangiopericyt...
   Price 5.50 €
• Is ethmoidal adenocarcino...
   Price 10.50 €
• Primary sub-mandibular gl...
   Price 8.50 €
• Evolution of facial nerve...
   Price 10.50 €
• Use of inomeric cement: P...
   Price 10.50 €
• Fistula of the fourth bra...
   Price 5.50 €
• Revascularized free scapu...
   Price 10.50 €
• A single appointment with...
   Price 8.50 €
• A case of laryngeal sialo...
   Price 10.50 €
• The value of fine-needle ...
   Price 10.50 €
• Notes on voice and speech...
   Price 8.50 €
• Epitympanic osteoma of th...
   Price 12.50 €
• Oropharyngeal reconstruct...
   Price 10.50 €
• Postural study on healthy...
   Price 10.50 €
• The domes crossover: A ne...
   Price 10.50 €
• Laryngeal pemphigus...
   Price 5.50 €
• Interest of peri-operativ...
   Price 10.50 €

Total Order 356.50 €

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 Order
o Issue N# 1 - 2011 o

PHONIATRICS

Context influence on the perception of dysphonia: when the knowledge of the patient’s clinical state can modify the results of perceptual voice quality assess­ment


Authors : Ghio A, Merienne S, Giovanni A. (Marseille)

Ref. : Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol. 2011;132,1:9-17.

Article published in french
Downloadable PDF document french



Summary : Two experiments were conducted to examine how knowledge of the patient’s clinical state affects the results of perceptual voice quality assessment performed by specialists in voice therapy. This study involved 53 patients with a dysphonia. For each speaker, we selected a pair of recordings made in different circumstances. These pairs of voices were presented to seven listeners (ENT surgeons or speech therapists). The task was to perceptually compare the severity of the dysphonia between the 2 recordings of the pair. Stimuli were presented first in a blind test, then several weeks later with accompanying information about the patient; in particular, whether the voice was pre- or post- treatment was explicitly specified. We balanced this artificial contextual information in order to (α) reinforce the blind judgment (for example, voices perceived as better in the blind test were indicated as post treatment); (β) be inconsistent (in a clinical point of view) compared to the blind test (for example, voices perceived as more disordered during the blind test were indicated as post treatment). Results revealed that in the clinical-consistent context α, the preference was amplified in a significant way. In clinical-inconsistent condition β, we observed an inhibition effect or a change of decision. In this condi­tion, the judgment was more dependant on the contextual information (pre/post treatment) than on the auditory sensation obtained in blind condition. These findings are discussed with reference to results in the literature on visual, olfactory or audi­tory perception in context. In the frame of perceptual voice assess­ment, results revealed that only blind tests can provide reliable results.


Price : 10.50 €      order
|


Subscribe online - Pay by credit card!


© Copyright 1999-2024 - Revue de Laryngologie   Réalisation - Hébergement ELIDEE