@article {58472, title = {Acoustic Screening of the {\textquotedblleft}Wet voice{\textquotedblright}: Proof of Concept in an ex vivo Canine Laryngeal Model}, journal = {The Laryngoscope}, year = {2022}, month = {Dec-19-2022}, abstract = {

Background
Current protocols for bedside swallow evaluation have high rates of false negative results. Though experts are not consistently able to screen for aspiration risk by assessing vocal quality, there is emerging evidence that vocal acoustic parameters are significantly different in patients at risk of aspiration. Herein, we aimed to determine whether the presence of material on the vocal folds in an excised canine laryngeal model may have an impact on acoustic and aerodynamic measures.

Methods
Two ex vivo canine larynges were tested. Three liquids of different viscosities (1:100 diluted glycerin, pure glycerin, and honey-thick Varibar) were placed on the vocal folds at a constant volume. Acoustic and aerodynamic measures were obtained in both adducted and abducted vocal fold configurations. Intraglottal high-speed imaging was used to approximate the maximum divergence angle of the larynges in the studied conditions and examine its relationship to vocal efficiency (VE) and acoustic measures.

Results
In glottic insufficiency conditions only, we found that several acoustic parameters could predict the presence of material on the vocal folds. Based on the combination of the aerodynamic and acoustic data, we found that decreased spectral energy in the higher harmonics was associated with decreased VE in the presence of material on the vocal folds and/or glottic insufficiency.

Conclusion
Decreased spectral energy in the higher harmonics of the voice was found to be a potential biomarker of swallowing dysfunction, as it correlates with decreased vocal efficiency due to material on the vocal folds and/or glottic insufficiency, both of which are known risk factors for aspiration.

}, issn = {0023-852X, 1531-4995}, doi = {10.1002/lary.30525}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lary.30525}, author = {Rameau, Ana{\"\i}s and Andreadis, Katerina and Ganesan, Vinayak and Lachs, Mark S and Rosen, Tony and Wang, Fei and Maddox, Alexandra and Klinck, Holger and Khosla, Sid M. and de Luzan, Charles Farbos and Madhusudhana, Shyam} } @article {57417, title = {Separation-related behaviour indicates the effect of functional breed selection in dogs (Canis familiaris)}, year = {2019}, abstract = {

The domestication of dogs resulted in several fundamental behavioural changes as compared to their closest wild living relative, the wolf. While these characteristics are considered to be fairly robust across dogs, dog breeds themselves manifest apparently strong behavioural differences. Thus far the functional roots of breed-specific behaviours are still less understood and supported by empirical research. We hypothesized that historical selection for the level of working interaction intimacy with their handlers, may have resulted in the fundamental differences between the main working dog types and their behavioural reactions when separated from their owner. In our study, dogs from breeds that were originally selected for either cooperative or independent work tasks, were tested in a short outdoor separation test. We included dogs with and without owner-reported separation-related disorder (SRD) to both groups. We found that SRD-status and the breed type were in significant association with various stress related behaviours during separation from the owner. Dogs from cooperative working breeds with SRD barked more frequently, meanwhile barking was less prevalent in independent breeds and also in cooperative breeds without owner-reported SRD symptoms. General movement (showing the dogs\’ intention to follow or find the disappearing, then absent owner) was uniformly strongest in cooperative dogs with SRD. Whining appeared most frequently in dogs with SRD, regardless to the breed type. These are the first results that support a functional evolutionary framework behind the association of particular dog breeds with the extent of their stressful reactions to separation from their owner.

}, keywords = {Barking, cooperation, Dog breeds, evolution, Frustration, Separation, Whining}, doi = {10.1016/j.applanim.2019.104884}, author = {Pongr{\'a}cz, P{\'e}ter and G{\'o}mez, Sara Alvarez and Lenkei, Rita} } @article {57352, title = {Pawsitively sad: pet-owners are more sensitive to negative emotion in animal distress vocalizations}, journal = {Royal Society Open Science}, volume = {6}, year = {2019}, month = {Jun-08-2021}, pages = {181555}, abstract = {

Pets have numerous, effective methods to communicate with their human hosts. Perhaps most conspicuous of these are distress vocalizations: in cats, the \‘miaow\’ and in dogs, the \‘whine\’ or \‘whimper\’. We compared a sample of young adults who owned cats and or dogs (\‘pet-owners\’ n = 264) and who did not (n=297) on their ratings of the valence of animal distress vocalizations, taken from a standardized database of sounds. We also examined these participants\’ self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression, and their scores on a measure of interpersonal relationship functioning. Pet-owners rated the animal distress vocalizations as sadder than adults who did not own a pet. Cat-owners specifically gave the most negative ratings of cat miaows compared with other participants, but were no different in their ratings of other sounds. Dog sounds were rated more negatively overall, in fact as negatively as human baby cries. Pet-owning adults (cat only, dog only, both) were not significantly different from adults with no pets on symptoms of depression, anxiety or on self- reported interpersonal relationship functioning. We suggest that pet ownership is associated with greater sensitivity to negative emotion in cat and dog distress vocalizations.

}, keywords = {animal vocalizations, cat miaows, crying, dog whines, emotion perception, pet-owners}, issn = {2054-5703}, doi = {10.1098/rsos.181555}, url = {https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.181555https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.181555}, author = {Parsons, Christine E. and LeBeau, Richard T. and Kringelbach, Morten L. and Young, Katherine S.} }