Preprint Article Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Kalman Filter Implementation of Subglottal Impedance-Based Inverse Filtering to Estimate Glottal Airflow during Phonation

Version 1 : Received: 4 November 2021 / Approved: 8 November 2021 / Online: 8 November 2021 (14:37:44 CET)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Cortés, J.; Alzamendi, G.; Weinstein, A.; Yuz, J.; Espinoza, V.; Mehta, D.D.; Hillman, R.; Zañartu, M. Kalman Filter Implementation of Subglottal Impedance-Based Inverse Filtering to Estimate Glottal Airflow during Phonation. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 401. Cortés, J.; Alzamendi, G.; Weinstein, A.; Yuz, J.; Espinoza, V.; Mehta, D.D.; Hillman, R.; Zañartu, M. Kalman Filter Implementation of Subglottal Impedance-Based Inverse Filtering to Estimate Glottal Airflow during Phonation. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 401.

Abstract

Subglottal Impedance-Based Inverse Filtering (IBIF) allows for the continuous, non-invasive estimation of glottal airflow from a surface accelerometer placed over the anterior neck skin below the larynx, which has been shown to be advantageous for the ambulatory monitoring of vocal function. However, during long-term ambulatory recordings over several days, conditions may drift from the laboratory environment where the IBIF parameters were initially estimated due to sensor positioning, skin attachment, and temperature, among other factors. Observation uncertainties and model mismatch may result in significant deviations in the glottal airflow estimates, but are very difficult to quantify in ambulatory conditions due to a lack of a reference signal. To address this issue, we propose a Kalman filter implementation of the IBIF filter, which allows for both estimating the model uncertainty and adapting the airflow estimates to correct for signal deviations. One-way ANOVA results from laboratory experiments using the Rainbow Passage indicate a an improvement on amplitude-based measures for PVH subjects compared to IBIF which shows a statistically difference with respect to the reference oral airflow (p=0.02,F=4.1). MFDR from PVH subjects is slightly different to the oral airflow when compared to IBIF (p=0.04, F=3.3). Other measures did not have significant differences with either Kalman or IBIF, with the exception of H1H2, whose performance deteriorates for both methods. Overall, both methods show similar flottal airflow measures, with the advantage of Kalman by improving amplitude estimation. Moreover, Kalman filter deviations from the IBIF output airflow might suggest a better representation of some fine details in the ground-truth glottal airflow signal. Other applications may take more advantage from the adaptation offered by the Kalman filter implementation.

Keywords

Vocal Hyperfunction; Inverse Filtering; Kalman Filter

Subject

Engineering, Automotive Engineering

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.