↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Laryngeal Hyperfunction During Whispering: Reality or Myth?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Voice, March 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 2,269)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
120 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Laryngeal Hyperfunction During Whispering: Reality or Myth?
Published in
Journal of Voice, March 2006
DOI 10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.10.007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam D. Rubin, Veeraphol Praneetvatakul, Shirley Gherson, Cheryl A. Moyer, Robert T. Sataloff

Abstract

For years, otolaryngologists and voice therapists have warned voice patients that whispering causes more trauma to the larynx than normal speech. However, no large series of patients has ever been examined fiberoptically during whispering to test this hypothesis. As part of our routine examination, patients are asked to count from 1 to 10 in a normal voice and in a whispered voice. We reviewed recorded fiberoptic examinations of 100 patients who had voice complaints. We compared supraglottic hyperfunction and vocal fold closure during the normal and whispered phonation of each patient. Sixty-nine percent of the patients demonstrated increased supraglottic hyperfunction with whispered voice. Eighteen percent had no change, and 13% had less severe hyperfunction. The most common glottal configuration during whisper was an inverted Y, which resulted from compression of the anterior and middle thirds of the true vocal folds. However, 12 patients had no true vocal fold contact during whispered voice, despite having adequate glottic closure with normal voice. Although whispering involves more severe hyperfunction in most patients, it does not seem to do so in all patients. In some patients, it may be less traumatic than normal voice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 120 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 65 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Student > Master 8 12%
Professor 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 27%
Linguistics 9 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Arts and Humanities 4 6%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 20 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 129. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 November 2023.
All research outputs
#328,121
of 25,758,211 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Voice
#11
of 2,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#432
of 92,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Voice
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,758,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,269 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 92,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them