## 5 Results and Discussion  
Considering the case without medial compression as an exemplar, the estimated material properties from the Bayesian inferences are presented in Table 3. Overall, the estimated parameters show good agreement with the \"ground truth\" experimental values; the maximum discrepancy between the estimates \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \(\mathbf{E_{\text{bdy}}}\) & \(\mathbf{E_{\text{cvr}}}\) & \(\mathbf{E_{\text{lig}}}\) & \(\mathbf{p_{\text{sub}}}\) & \(\mathbf{\rho}\) & \(\mathbf{\eta}\) & \(x_{0}\) \\  & (\(\mathbf{kPa}\)) & (\(\mathbf{Pa}\)) & (\(\mathbf{kPa}\)) & (\(\mathbf{Pa}\)) & (\(\mathbf{kg/m^{3}}\)) & (\(\mathbf{Poise}\)) & (\(\mathbf{mm}\)) \\ \hline Experimental Value & 11.8 & 600 & 2 & 1000 & 1049.75 & - & - \\ Distribution Bounds & (9, 15) & (250, 950) & (0.5, 3) & (400, 1800) & (950, 1200) & (1, 7) & (7.4, 8.4) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: List of the the experimental values and prior distributions used for the estimated parameters. The distribution bounds are the bounds of the employed uniform prior distribution (lower bound, upper bound). and the experimental values occurs with the Young's modulus of the ligament with a 9.6% difference. We note that the experimental values, while considered the \"ground truth\", are themselves approximate values estimated from the silicone mixture fractions. We observe that \(E_{\text{bdy}}\) and \(E_{\text{cvr}}\) are over-estimated while \(p_{\text{sub}}\) is under-estimated when compared with the experimental values. The under-estimation of subglottal pressure is likely due to the simplified fluids model being used resulting in high nodal pressures. Over-estimating Young's modulus of the cover is likely due to the lack of an epithelium in the FE model. The epithelium in the silicone VFs is extremely thin, but has a high Young's modulus (45 kPa). As a result it is likely that the estimate for \(E_{\text{cvr}}\) is slightly elevated to compensate. It is unclear why the estimate for the body is consistently higher than expected, but may be related with the under-estimation of \(E_{\text{lig}}\). An important observation, however, is that all of the experimental values fall within two standard deviations of the estimated values. This indicates that the use of a FE model of the VFs is statistically capable of inferring accurate estimates of the material properties from a GAW. The relative uncertainty (standard deviation divided by the estimated value) shows that all estimates except for the [PERSON]'s modulus of the ligament have uncertainties of approximately 3%; the Young's modulus of the ligament has an 8.6% level of uncertainty. The relatively large bias and uncertainty for the ligament stiffness in comparison with the other parameters potentially results from the comparative insensitivity of the FE kinematics to this parameter. The ligament is a small internal region of the geometry and as a result has less impact on the large scale kinematics compared with the body and cover layers. Since \(E_{\text{lig}}\) is the only parameter defined in this region, a range of values are likely to generate similar GAWs, and any error in the estimate of \(E_{\text{lig}}\) can be compensated for by slight adjustments to \(E_{\text{bdy}}\) and/or \(E_{\text{cvr}}\). Despite the modest difficulty in estimating this parameter, overall Bayesian inference is able to accurately estimate the VF material properties from HSV data alone, presuming that the histology of the folds are known a priori. Figure 3 compares the kinematics of the FE model employing the estimated material properties from Table 3 with the HSV over a single vibratory cycle. The FE model captures the silicone VF motion well, including the mucosal wave and the pronounced inferior-superior motion of the folds (see the third column in Figure 3). The fourth column highlights that closure of the FE model does not necessarily always correspond with closure of the silicone VFs.