{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01768172888015717, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0009823182711198428, 'mean_word_length': 5.408805031446541, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A comparison of noninvasive procedures to assess nasal airway resistance.

Through sophisticated equipment has been used to determine nasal airway resistance (Rnaw), data must be interpreted cautiously because of the variability of procedures used to obtain the measures. The present investigation was designed to determine the effects of breathing versus a speech task, using a forward versus a resting tongue carriage, and the consistency of these measures on Rnaw values. Twenty young adult females performed a noninvasive procedure for assessment of Rnaw during rest breathing and nasal/m/ sound production with and without tongue anchoring over a 2-day period. No significant differences in Rnaw were found between days or tasks. Of the tasks examined, sustained/m/production and tongue anchoring procedures proved consistent adjuncts to quiet breathing for estimation of nasal airway resistance across days and airflow rate conditions. Clinical implications for the application of these procedures are discussed.