Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Example of VHM system.

Illustration of the smartphone-based ambulatory voice monitor that uses a neck-surface accelerometer attached to the skin halfway between the thyroid prominence and the suprasternal notch of a female subject.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Representation of the subglottal system.

(a) Accelerometer position and sub1 and sub2 system parts. (b) A mechano-acoustic analogy of the subglottal system including load impedance from skin. Reproduced with permission.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Occupations and mean age of adult females with PVH and matched-control participants analyzed (48 pairs).

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Frame-based glottal airflow measures estimated from the ambulatory neck-surface accelerometer signal using impedance-based inverse filtering.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Example of ambulatory IBIF analysis.

(A) Estimated glottal airflow waveform and (B) its derivative, showing how time-domain measures were derived per glottal cycle. Measures were then averaged over all cycles to yield a single value per frame for each time-domain measure.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Spectrum of the frame in Fig 3(A).

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Flowchart.

Feature extraction and classification process for 96 subjects.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 3.

Top 11 week-long summary statistics (from a total of 77) sorted by p-value from the 48 paired t-tests.

Statistically significant differences (*) were found by applying the Benjamini-Hochberg method using a false discovery rate of 0.1.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Classification performance of L1 logistic regression (L1-LR) and support vector machine (SVM) approaches for 96 subjects using IBIF features.

Mean (standard deviation) is reported for the performance metrics. Previous results using 51 pairs [3] and 20 pairs [16] are also shown. It is worth noting that the distribution of metrics such as AUC, across all models, may be non-normal and may benefit from other summary statistics such as median (IQR).

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 6.

Performance results across subject pairs with L1-logistic regression.

Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC), Accuracy, Sensitivity, Specificity. The red crosses indicates the average value for each performance metric.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Classification results from L1-logistic regression.

The threshold (blue line) at 0.57 classifies correctly 79 from 96 subjects (82.3%).

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

F-score distributions from Table 5.

From all 26 features (rightmost box plot) to only one feature (H1-H2 95th%, leftmost box plot).

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Table 5.

Association count of Beta (weight) variables that were included in all 48 models.

These 26 features were present in each logistic regresion model.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Mean and (standard deviation) performance metrics from L1-logistic regression for different group of features from Table 5, starting with the whole set of 26 features.

Iteratively, the following group is obtained by taking out the feature with the smallest absolute Beta value.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 9.

Odds ratio association with phonotraumatic subjects.

More »

Fig 9 Expand