The Measurement of Airflow Using Singing Helmet That Allows Free Movement of the Jaw.
Jack J Jiang, Rewais B Hanna, Malachi V Willey and 1 others
PMID 26365311WHAT IT FOUND
A portable acrylic helmet recorded airflow during vowels, sentences and singing in 32 adults while allowing free jaw movement.
It measured a known 1 L volume as 1.016 L, but has not been compared with standard devices or tested in voice disorders.
Key findings
01In 45 validation trials, the helmet measured a mean volume of 1.016 L, compared with the known 1.0 L volume, and its step response time was 0.173 s.
02The helmet recorded airflow during sentence tasks, and the abductor sentence produced greater airflow than the adductor sentence.
03The helmet recorded airflow during a singing scale and a song, and it captured dynamic airflow changes.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study tested only 32 adults without respiratory or laryngeal disease, so it does not show how the helmet performs in people with voice disorders. The helmet was not compared with standard airflow devices. The helmet needed 0.173 seconds to respond to a sudden airflow change, and reliable note values may require holding notes for at least 0.2 seconds. Subjects reported weight on the shoulders and loudness inside the device, and the authors say this may change voice production. The sound level meter was placed outside the helmet, so the recorded sound level may not match the environment inside the helmet. For sustained vowels, amplitude and fundamental frequency were not controlled, so airflow differences across intensities are limited.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the helmet is clinically validated for voice assessment. It was tested only in adults without respiratory or laryngeal disease and was not compared with standard airflow devices.