Nasal Breathing Through a Damp Gauze Enhances Surface Hydration of the Vocal Folds and Optimizes Vocal Function.

OBJECTIVE: The present study proposes a direct surface hydration system based on nasal breathing through a damp gauze. The goal is to observe whether such direct hydration procedure positively modifies vocal fold functionality by improving voice quality and enhancing the mobility and pliability of the vocal fold mucosa. METHODS: Sixty-one young adults without voice problems were enrolled and were randomly divided into three double-blinded treatment groups. In the first group (the gauze group), participants breathed through the nose wrapped in a damp gauze for 10 minutes while doing vocal warm-up exercises to facilitate water penetration into the mucosal layers of the vocal folds. The second group (the exercise group) performed the same warm-up exercises as the gauze group for 10 minutes without hydration procedures. The third group (the control group) talked using their normal speaking voice for 10 minutes. The participants were evaluated before and after the treatment tasks with three tests: a laryngostroboscopic examination (ie, the glottic closure, the amplitude of the mucosal wave, and the maximum opening of the glottic space); voice acoustic analysis (multidimensional voice program); and a perceptual voice evaluation (GRBAS scale). RESULTS: Results showed that after the use of a damp gauze, glottic closure, the amplitude of the mucosal wave, the maximum opening of the glottic space, the shimmer, and the B of GRBAS all improved. CONCLUSION: Findings showed significantly better vocal results for the participants of the gauze group, suggesting the damp gauze procedure to be an effective, fast, and economical procedure to improve and optimize vocal fold functionality. It can be hypothesized that the obtained results are related to an improvement in vocal folds surface hydration and viscoelasticity.

Changes in the Sensitivity to Language-Specific Orthographic Patterns With Age.

How do bilingual readers of languages that have similar scripts identify a language switch? Recent behavioral and electroencephalographic results suggest that they rely on orthotactic cues to recognize the language of the words they read in ambiguous contexts. Previous research has shown that marked words with language-specific letter sequences (i.e., letter sequences that are illegal in one of the two languages) are recognized more easily and faster than unmarked words. The aim of this study was to investigate sensitivity to markedness throughout childhood and early adulthood by using a speeded language decision task with words and pseudowords. A large group of Spanish-Basque bilinguals of different ages (children, preteenagers, teenagers and adults) was tested. Results showed a markedness effect in the second language across all age groups that changed with age. However, sensitivity to markedness in the native language was negligible. We conclude that sensitivity to orthotactics does not follow parallel developmental trend in the first and second language.

Exploring Different Types of Inhibition During Bilingual Language Production.

Multilinguals have to control their languages constantly to produce accurate verbal output. They have to inhibit possible lexical competitors not only from the target language, but also from non-target languages. Bilinguals' training in inhibiting incongruent or irrelevant information has been used to endorse the so-called bilingual advantage in executive functions, assuming a transfer effect from language inhibition to domain-general inhibitory skills. Recent studies have suggested that language control may rely on language-specific inhibitory control mechanisms. In the present study, unbalanced highly proficient bilinguals completed a rapid naming multi-inhibitory task in two languages. The task assessed three types of inhibitory processes: inhibition of the non-target language, inhibition of lexical competitors, and inhibition of erroneous auditory feedback. The results showed an interaction between lexical competition and erroneous auditory feedback, but no interactions with the inhibition of the non-target language. The results suggested that different subcomponents of language inhibition are involved during bilingual language production.