↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of a fiber-gel finite element model of vocal fold vibration to a transversely isotropic stiffness model

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Comparison of a fiber-gel finite element model of vocal fold vibration to a transversely isotropic stiffness model
Published in
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, September 2017
DOI 10.1121/1.5001055
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A fiber-gel vocal fold model is compared to a transversely isotropic stiffness model in terms of normal mode vibration. The fiber-gel finite element model (FG-FEM) consists of a series of gel slices, each with a two-dimensional finite element mesh, in a plane transverse to the tissue fibers. The gel slices are coupled with fibers under tension in the anterior-posterior dimension. No vibrational displacement in the fiber-length direction is allowed, resulting in a plane strain state. This is consistent with the assumption of transverse displacement of a simple string, offering a wide range of natural frequencies (well into the kHz region) with variable tension. For low frequencies, the results compare favorably with the natural frequencies of a transversely isotropic elastic stiffness model (TISM) in which the shear modulus in the longitudinal plane is used to approximate the effect of fiber tension. For high frequencies, however, the natural frequencies do not approach the string mode frequencies unless plane strain is imposed on the TISM model. The simplifying assumption of plane strain, as well as the use of analytical closed-form shape functions, allow for substantial savings in computational time, which is important in clinical and exploratory applications of the FG-FEM model.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 41%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 24%
Researcher 4 24%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 8 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Linguistics 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 3 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 October 2017.
All research outputs
#28,611,663
of 34,372,222 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
#12,406
of 14,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,073
of 354,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
#101
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,372,222 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 354,262 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.