American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Vol.20 348-366 November 2011. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0066)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Plexico, L. W.
Right arrow Articles by Faver, K. Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Plexico, L. W.
Right arrow Articles by Faver, K. Y.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Review

Assessment of Phonation Threshold Pressure: A Critical Review and Clinical Implications

Laura W. Plexicoa
Mary J. Sandagea
Katherine Y. Favera
a Auburn University, Auburn, AL

Correspondence to Laura W. Plexico: lwp0002{at}auburn.edu

Purpose: To describe the origins of the task elicitation procedure for determining phonation threshold pressure and, through a literature review and online survey, describe published procedural, environmental, and participant variable departures from the original methodology.

Method: Literature search terms included phonation threshold pressure, subglottal pressure and phonation, pressure measurement and phonation, lung pressure and phonation, and vocal fold oscillation onset. Inclusion criteria were limited to indirect assessment of phonation threshold pressure, English language publications between 1980 and 2009, and peer-reviewed journals. Studies including animals, computer or physical models, alaryngeal speakers, laryngeal airway resistance, or any airflow interruption technique were excluded. Twenty-four articles matched the inclusionary criteria. An online survey to query task elicitation procedures was then developed from the literature review.

Results: The scientific rationale for inclusion of phonation threshold pressure data was consistent across published studies; however, variations in procedural methodology for task elicitation were identified, as were environmental and participant inconsistencies that might affect phonation threshold pressure values. Findings of the online survey mirrored the inconsistencies identified in the literature review.

Conclusions: The methodological differences for task elicitation identified in this comprehensive review of the literature and the online survey, while bringing into question the reliability of phonation threshold pressure measurement, illuminate scientific questions yet to be answered to further refine and potentially standardize phonation threshold pressure as a more reliable research and clinical measurement.

Key Words: phonation threshold pressure, assessment, review


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?