## 2 Materials and Methods
### Data Analysis  
The timestamps for the first oscillation, first contact, last oscillation, and last contact of the vocal folds were determined in the HSV data by three raters. The GAT and GOT were then calculated based on the time difference between the oscillation and contact frames. The GATs and GOTs were measured during voice production by the true vocal folds. The oscillations of the false folds were only observed in one subject, i.e., S3M, and accordingly, the GAT and GOT for the false vocal folds were measured for this participant. The raters visually analyzed the data using playback software (Phantom Camera Control, PCC) with a playback speed of 30 fps. They were allowed to adjust the playback speed as low as 1 fps to select the accurate frame numbers for the contact. The raters did not go below 15 fps for detecting the oscillation frame. The raters applied a Gaussian filter (with a kernel size of 3 \(\times\) 3) and adjusted the gamma, gain, brightness, and contrast of the frames to facilitate the visual measurements. This filter was used to remove the pattern noise due to the camera lens and endoscope being slightly out of focus. The three raters completed their measurements for four participants and compared their measurements for every vocalization after completing the analysis. To do so, they met over video call and \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Non-Pathological**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Sex**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Age**} & & & \\ \hline N1M & M & 35 & & & & \\ \hline N2F & F & 35 & & & & \\ \hline N5F & F & 67 & & & & \\ \hline N9M & M & 49 & & & & \\ \hline N11F & F & 52 & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**AdSD (No Témenot)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Sex**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Age**} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Last** \\ **Injection** \\ **(months)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Length of Time** \\ **Botox Lasts** \\ **(months)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Length of dx** \\ **(years)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **CAPE-V** \\ **Overall** \\ **Severity** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **CAPE-V** \\ **Characteristic** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline S3M & M & 76 & 3.5 & 2.5 & 7 & Severe & Strain \\ \hline \({}^{*}\)54F & F & 67 & 5 & 2 & 2+ &
\begin{tabular}{c} Moderate- \\ Severe \\ \end{tabular} & Strain \\ \hline S6F & F & 67 & 3 & 2 & 3 & Moderate & Strain \\ \hline S7F & F & 60 & 4 & 2 & 4 & N/A & N/A \\ \hline \({}^{*}\)8 SF & F & 76 & 5 & 5 & 5+ & Moderate & Strain \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
\({}^{*}\)Patient was seen at an outside institution prior to their initial visit to Mayo Clinic, so the exact date of diagnosis is unknown.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: The characteristics of participants in the normophonic and AdSD groups. went over the vocalizations for which their measurements were more than 10 frames apart for the contacts and 20 frames apart for the oscillations. Accordingly, the measurements of GAT and GOT by each pair of raters were subtracted from each other (Rater 1-Rater 2, Rater 1-Rater 3, and Rater 2-Rater 3), and the Wald 99% confidence interval was calculated for inter-rater reliability assessment. The raters watched the videos together and came to a consensus about their measurements. Based on this consensus meeting, Rater 3's measurements were found to be the most reliable measures. Rater 3 improved the accuracy of her measurement based on the consensus meeting and completed the data analysis for the remaining five participants. In this study, Rater 3's measurements for all participants were used for the data analysis. Additionally, two independent evaluators compared the measurements completed by the three raters to assess the similarity/dissimilarity of measurements among raters and determined the sources of discrepancies. The three Raters reviewed more than 2.6 million HSV images (frames) for the data analysis. Participant N1 was excluded from the analysis due to extremely dark HSV data.