Talk:Vocal cords

Vocal cords v.s. vocal folds

The name "vocal cords" seems to be at least 20 to 3 times more common than "vocal folds". [1] The page should therefore be moved to "vocal cords" in accordance with Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) Nohat 22:02, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

Done. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 22:58, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

However, most speech scientists agree on that "vocal cords" is an antecedent and incorrect name for the "vocal folds". Thus, I would say that "vocal folds" is preferable. --Tbackstr 12:46, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

hi. yes, in phonetics, vocal folds is more common than vocal cords. but, most general readers would probably not know this term. – ishwar  (speak) 06:54, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

phonetics student chiming in: the more accurate term is vocal folds, since they are folds and not cords. imho the correct option is to redirect cords and chords to folds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.102.86 (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2005

I would also recommend setting up a redirect from the common mistake "vocal chords", as it currently leads to a search where the relevant article, this one, is not necessarily very obvious. -- (Nguyễn Bảo, not logged in) 24.194.7.82 7 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)

I disagree. 'vocal chords' is totally incorrect and should not appear to be an alternate way of saying 'vocal cords'. IMO putting a redirect without explanation is just encouraging sloppy usage.--Anchoress 15:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Folds? How is the term "fold" any more correct than "cord"  ? The vocal apparatus does not fold. It is not a cord, but it is also not a cord. Certainly not a chord. Traditionally it is called a cord, like heart strings. The vocal muscle is a huge muscle and not like a cord. And it is not something that folds either. It does not fold itself onto something else, or anything that can normally called fold. So, that term is meaningless also. OK? best wishes.

05:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)192.214.192.58 (talk)

Purpose of vocal cords

The article does not do enough to address the physiological and evolutionary purpose of the vocal cords. When did the first vocal cords evolve in our ancestors, and what important physiological purpose do they serve? Are they there merely to emit sounds that attract mates? How is the human vocal cord different from those of other mammals or animals? How does this tie in with the emergence of human vocal communication? 64.12.117.13 00:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Death grunt

"I have added mention of the death grunt singing style. It is noted on the death grunt article that the false vocal folds are used, and it is also explained in a DVD called "The Zen of Screaming" by a professional vocal instructor, Melissa Cross, who worked with Brian Fair of Shadows Fall and Randy Blythe of Lamb of God, among others."

There is no evidence for the use of the "false vocal folds" (Vestibular Folds)in phonation during overtone singing. Unfortunately, there is an abuse of citation. The author most cited by the "False Fold Theorists" is an author by the name of Leonardo Fuks. However, if one bothers to vet out the source (citation number 11, under the chapter entitled "Instruments Studied"), they'd find that Mr. Fuks muses at the possibility that the Vestibular Folds might be used for lower notes in overtone singing. However, a couple of things should be noted. First, the musing begins with the disclaimer "The underlying mechanism has not been clearly explained. This raises the question whether structures other than the vocal folds could play the role of an oscillator." Second, this phenomenon is really outside the scope of the article being quoted. I have yet to find a secondary source which might back up Mr. Fuks supposition, not that the author intended his article to be used in this manner.

At present, there does not appear to be a significant amount of scientific data in regards to overtone singing. However, from studies done, the consensus among experts is that the overtones are produced when any note is sounded (except for purely digital sound). These differences in overtone frequencies are what give instruments their own unique timbre. The human voice can selectively reinforce these frequencies by changing the shape of the resonating chamber by subtle changes in the positions of the lips, jaw, tongue, soft palate, and amount of nasality. This is what allows humans to discern vowel sounds, for instance.

http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/texto/overtone.html

http://www.amazon.com/Coffins-Overtones-Canto-Berton-Coffin/product-reviews/081081370X/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending SuperDaveOkie (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Veracity of simultaneously singing with two or three voices?

What is the veracity of the phenomenon described in these articles: http://www.scena.org/lsm/sm2-9/sm2-9Nomads.html http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~sjansson/throat.htm If this phenomenon is real should it be added to the article?

OK, I added a link to "overtone singing" to this article. Should I add the above links as references to the "overtone singing" article? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Vocal Nodes?

I hear mention among musicians of "nodes" forming on the vocal chords, due to abuse. Some sort of malady. Perhaps caused by the vocal chords becoming calloused? Would anyone be able to add information about this? If so, please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by - tSR - Nth Man (talk • contribs) 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. It seems that the larynx article linked to this info. They're actually called "Vocal_fold_nodule". I think a section and information should be added to this article to explain maladies of the vocal folds.

- tSR - Nth Man (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Latin terminology

The article mentions plicae vocales but does not mention ligamenta vocalia, labia vocalia, or conus elasticus. Could someone please explain what these are and their English equivalents and add them to the article, which would therefore also require a better and more detailed diagram. --Espoo (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Something More About Sex Differences

This article did not mention that men have larger vocal chords than women because the hormone testosterone makes a man's vocal chords thicker. I think testosterone causes a man to look and sound strong so he can attract a woman. 71.90.23.222 (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

glottis

Please say something about the "glottis" in this article about the vocal folds. I would do it myself, except: The epiglottis article claims that the "glottis" is the gap between the vocal cords. The "glottis" article has a slightly different definition. Which is correct? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Location

The beginning of this section is poorly written. It says nothing of the epiglottis preventing the passage of food into the trachea, and says the tongue "separates the two tubes", which it does not. Also, when food or liquid does contact the vocal folds, the reflex is coughing, not choking. Choking is the prevention of air passage because of the obstruction. Recommend edit to clarify, such as: "The epiglottis acts as a flap which closes off the trachea during the act of swallowing to direct food into a separate tube behind the trachea called the esophagus. If food or liquid does enter the trachea and contact the vocal folds because of a failure of this safeguard ("going down the wrong pipe"), it causes a coughing reflex to expel the matter in order to prevent choking."Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

video?

like the one at the bottom of this page http://www.medicine.uiowa.edu/otolaryngology/cases/normal/normal2.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.82.39 (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Humans and animals

What is that makes human vocal chords different from those of animals, so that humans can speak and animals can't ? I think the answer should be in the article.188.27.79.57 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Histology of the vocal folds

Having this information in a single place would:

• Improve the overall quality of the information in both articles, by giving it context and reducing duplication
• Help readers, who don't need to navigate to a separate article
• Decrease needless fragmentation, and enhance the ability of readers to access this information. LT910001 (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• It would make the page too long. It would make it one long complex page. I vote no.Telecine Guy 01:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have asked about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Pitch and volume variation

I would like to see something in this about how a singer creates different pitch notes (is it the tension or the length of the vocal cords?) and different volume (I would assume this has to do with the rate of air through the vocal cords and thus the amplitude of the vocal cords' vibration). Thanks! --zandperl (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. With respect to the objection raised with respect to the subtopics, a Google search indicates that these are at least as likely to be used with "cord" rather than "fold", so it does not appear that the technical terms are set phrases exclusively using "fold". bd2412 T 18:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Vocal folds → Vocal cords
• Vocal fold nodule → Vocal cord nodule (added by Netoholic)
• Vocal fold paresis → Vocal cord paresis (added by Netoholic)
• Vocal-fold cyst → Vocal cord cyst (added by Netoholic)
• Histology of the vocal folds → Histology of the vocal cords (added by Netoholic)

– per WP:COMMONNAME. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME as evidenced by Google Ngram comparison showing a historical and present-day preference. -- Netoholic @ 01:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above rationale. Thank you for proposing this sensible move! --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Added related pages - I just noticed that there are four closely related articles that also should be moved to keep in line with the main topic. I've added them to the move request above. -- Netoholic @ 12:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per above. Additional relevant points from WP:COMMONNAME:
  • Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above.
  • [e.g.] Down syndrome (not: Trisomy 21)

--Thnidu (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Separate but related point: the article is written in highly technical language, unfamiliar to the non-specialist, even where there exists a non-technical alternative. E.g.,

  They are attached posteriorly to the arytenoid cartilages, and anteriorly to the thyroid cartilage.

Why not "in front of/behind"? --Thnidu (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support moving Vocal folds to Vocal cords. Oppose moving other pages. Those are more technical articles and it makes more sense for them to have the technical name rather than half-technical name, half-common name. Natureium (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• BD2412, only 2 people commented after the other articles were added, and one person voted for and one against. Why did you move the whole group? Natureium (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The other articles were added by a third editor, without any objection being made by the original proposer. It is a general rule that subtopics should reflect the naming convention for their own supertopic, and in fact it is common to move subtopics accordingly even if they are not raised in the discussion at all. bd2412 T 18:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @BD2412: I agree with Natureium in that the other articles are more technical and need more deliberation, and did not receive sufficient discussion. I think the moves were premature. Nardog (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Very well then, I will re-open the discussion on those topics. bd2412 T 02:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
      • The subtopics have been moved back to their original titles. The discussion should show up as relisted on the WP:RM page shortly. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Despite relisting it, I see no reason to keep this open any longer. Will move all four. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• Vocal fold nodule → Vocal cord nodule
• Vocal fold paresis → Vocal cord paresis
• Vocal-fold cyst → Vocal cord cyst
• Histology of the vocal folds → Histology of the vocal cords

Proposed by Netoholic in response to the requested move of Vocal folds to Vocal cords above. Opposed by Natureium in the original discussion. Nardog (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose As much as I do not possess the expertise required to assess the validity of each move, I find these four move proposals ill-motivated. Technical terms must be assessed one by one, not uniformly follow the name of a broader article. Nardog (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Nardog, if you really do not possess the expertise required to assess the validity of each move, the prudent thing to do is to abstain from the discussion and allow those with the expertise to bring forward an informed view. No such user (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Posting to WP:MED. Natureium (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. In addition --although not relevant to this specific requested move-- I would prefer Vocal cords → Vocal cord per WP:SINGULAR. --Treetear (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support – per WP:COMMONNAME. I proposed the main rename, but I think it's ok for me to participate on this rename, since I didn't propose it but I do think it's a good idea. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support These are nearly always called "vocal cords" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Question does anyone contend that "vocal cords" is more accurate than "vocal folds"? Usage is clearly mixed, with systematic reviews using either term. This may be a case of different usage preferences in different subdisciplines. SLP's commonly use "folds". LeadSongDog come howl! 16:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It would be useful to have some real-world statistics of usage for the terms specified above. However, it appears indisputable that both terms are used to at least some degree with respect to each of them, so it is likely that either naming scheme is permissible. bd2412 T 15:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Support: Thanks, Anarchyte. I just ran Google searches for “vocal cord” and “vocal fold”", excluding hits that include the words "Wikipedia" or "Books LLC". Results:
      • "vocal cord(s)" About 1,370,000 results
      • "vocal fold(s)" About 552,000 results

    For further details, including uses found in Google Scholar, Google Books, and News Archive, click on the thumbnail to the right.

    

    Google hits for "vocal cord(s)" vs "vocal fold(s)"

    "Vocal fold/folds" has only 40% of the number of hits that "vocal cord/cords" has. This strongly supports the statement that "vocal cord" is a much more frequent term than "vocal fold", even in Google Scholar.

    In reply to LeadSongDog, above: Regarding "different usage preferences in different subdisciplines", Wikipedia:Article titles#Explicit conventions says

    Wikipedia has many naming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). In rare cases these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of the conventions for medicine). This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names; when it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia.

    --Thnidu (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

    P.S.: In rerunning the searches I found some results that are at odds with Google's definitions of the search parameters, but they aren't great enough to invalidate the conclusion above. --Thnidu (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

    @Thnidu:, I mean, is there evidence that "Vocal cord nodule", "Vocal cord paresis", "Vocal cord cyst", and "Histology of the vocal cords", respectively, are comparable in usage to "Vocal fold nodule", "Vocal fold paresis", "Vocal-fold cyst", "Histology of the vocal folds"? bd2412 T 03:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

    Google n-gram couldn't find any instances of "vocal fold nodule" at all. I didn't check the others. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: Pinging those who participated in the previous discussion in case they wish to comment here: @Tom (LT), Thnidu, and Netoholic: (though it's assumed the last supports). Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per COMMONNAME as above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Opening sentence

@PhilHarley77: I've just reverted this change: [2] If the opening sentence is wrong, it should be fixed, but this is the wrong way to do it. There really shouldn't be any refs in the lead, per WP:LEADCITE. Medical articles tend to have them anyway, but they should be redundant. The correct information needs to be in the body of the article. Once that is done, the material can be summarized for the lead. The opening sentence should not have any unnecessary jargon in it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Article audience?

This is a quite thorough article, but I got the impression it was written for a medical professional or medical student not the general public. Perfectly accurate, but difficult for alayman to understand. Kauaidan (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right. The lead of this article should give an introduction that is understandable by a wide audience. We should all work on that. Natureium (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Add new image

Hi, I just finished drawing this and it might be a good fit for this page. It's based on Fig. 2 in http://biorobotics.harvard.edu/research/heather.html

Gerazov (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"DHT... causes irreversible changes"

I'm not a scientist by any stretch so I'm definitely not confident enough to edit this with any authority, but the third paragraph of the opening section has no citations and may be wrong. It states that DHT - a metabolite of testosterone causes irreversible changes to the vocal chords and deepens the voice.

However several studies by Imperato-McGinley et al (such as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4432067/) on men with genetic abnormalities causing extremely low DHT and regular Testosterone levels showed that their voices deepened normally. The studies conclude that Testosterone itself, NOT DHT causes changes to the vocal chords. 139.216.33.181 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)