## 4 Discussion
### Phonation Parameters
#### 4.2.1 GAW Parameters  
Eight GAW parameters were considered. The ALR parameter differs statistically significantly between GGI\({}_{1,3}\) as well as between GGI\({}_{2,3}\). Higher ALR values indicate greater deformability and are desirable [39]. In this study, as well as in [PERSON] et al. [39], ALR decreases from GGI\({}_{1}\) to GGI\({}_{3}\). Since GGI\({}_{3}\) has no vocal fold contact, a lower dynamical deformability and consequently a lower value of ALR is plausible compared to GGI\({}_{1}\) and GGI\({}_{2}\). It is noticeable that the mean ALR for GGI\({}_{3}\) from this study is 37% lower compared to the normal ALR at GGI\({}_{3}\) in [39]; see Table 7. These worse results suggest less deformability for the disordered oscillation data. In comparison of the two vibrational characteristics, the values of the ALR parameters were statistically significantly worse for Group\({}_{\text{A}}\) compared with Groups (Table 4). The difference between the two mean values was \(-55\%\) (Table 6). Comparing the lowest mean ALR values of GGI (Table 5) and the vibrational characteristics (Table 6), mean ALR was considerably lower for GGI\({}_{3}\) at a mean value of 4.92, compared with the mean ALR value for Group\({}_{\text{A}}\) (8.14). This suggests that the combination of disordered oscillations (Group\({}_{\text{S}}\) or Group\({}_{\text{A}}\)) and GGI\({}_{3}\) is particularly unfavorable with respect to the oscillatory characteristics of the vocal folds. The two GAW parameters ASI and PAI, which reflect the dynamic left-right symmetry of the vocal folds, are associated with voice pathologies [58; 64]. Surprisingly in this study, as well as in [PERSON] et al. [39] the ASI and PAI values had better values for GGI\({}_{2}\) compared to GGI\({}_{1}\) and GGI\({}_{3}\). Regarding the vibrational characteristics, it should be noted that the values both for ASI and PAI showed worse values for Group\({}_{\text{A}}\) compared to Groups (Table 6). The PAI values were statistically significantly worse for the aperiodic vibrations (p = 0.009). This may be an indication that aperiodic oscillations are related to voice pathologies [58; 64]. The ASQ values drop for GGI\({}_{1,2}\) from 0.60 to 0.49 and then increases to 0.52 for GGI\({}_{2,3}\). In comparison, in [PERSON] et al. [39], the ASQ values decreased \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Parameters**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**GGI\({}_{1}\)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**GGI\({}_{2}\)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**GGI\({}_{3}\)**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**(A) GAW Measures**} \\ \hline ALR (a.u.) & +8\% & +5\% & \(-37\%\) \\ STIFNESS (frames\({}^{-1}\)) & \(-3\%\) & +0\% & +0\% \\ ASQ (a.u.) & \(-3\%\) & \(-20\%\) & \(-12\%\) \\ CQ (a.u.) & +6\% & +32\% & +17\% \\ QQ (a.u.) & +5\% & +0\% & +0\% \\ SQ (a.u.) & +43\% & \(-22\%\) & \(-18\%\) \\ ASI (a.u.) & \(-6\%\) & +2\% & +1\% \\ PAI (a.u.) & +8\% & +0\% & +8\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**(B) Aerodynamic parameters**} \\ \hline \(\mathbf{R_{B}}\) (Pa s\({}^{-1}\)) & \(-4\%\) & \(-15\%\) & +42\% \\ SPL (dB) & \(-3\%\) & \(-0\%\) & \(-14\%\) \\ \(P_{\text{S}}\) (Pa) & +6\% & \(-25\%\) & +60\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**(C) Harmonic measures**} \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**(CPPA (dB)**} & \(-25\%\) & \(-30\%\) & \(-43\%\) \\ \(\mathbf{CP_{P}}\) (dB) & \(-29\%\) & \(-36\%\) & \(-45\%\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{1}\) Positive deviation means that values increased; negative deviations that our data decreased compared to [PERSON] et al. [39].  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Percentage change of this present data to normal data in corresponding GGI groups, [PERSON] et al. (2018) [39]. \({}^{1}\)continuously from 0.62 to 0.59 with a glottal gap increase from GGI\({}_{1}\) to GGI\({}_{3}\). Unsurprisingly, there are statistically significant differences in the CQ parameter between the GGI groups, because GGI\({}_{1}\) has a complete glottis closure and GGI\({}_{2,3}\) show no or only partial glottis closure.