Effects of Vocal Demands on Voice Performance

of Student Singers
*Maria Claudia Franca and Jeanine F. Wagner, *yCarbondale, Illinois
Summary: Purpose. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of cumulative vocal demands on the
voices of music students majoring in voice throughout an academic semester.
Method. Acoustic and aerodynamic voice parameters captured across an academic semester were analyzed. This study
was designed as a time-course investigation, in which all participants were tested individually at three separate times
distributed equally over an academic semester. General effects were verified with the application of one-way within-participants analysis of variances with repeated measures. The equipment used for monitoring vocal behavior consisted of
the Computerized Speech Lab, the Phonatory Aerodynamic System, and the Ambulatory Phonation Monitor, computerbased systems for the assessment of voice. Self-reported data regarding voice usage were also collected.
Results. In this study, comparisons of voice parameters of student singers repeatedly measured throughout an
extended period of time did not lead to statistically significant differences. Self-reported information suggested a
reasonable level of knowledge and awareness regarding voice concerns in this population.
Conclusions. The results of this study indicated consistent stability of voice acoustic and aerodynamic parameters in
this group throughout an academic semester.
Key Words: Singing voiceVoice acoustics and aerodynamicsVoice monitoring.
INTRODUCTION
Singing is among the functions that most critically rely on the
voice. Continuous vocal production is an activity that involves
a synchronized interaction of multiple physical processes such
as respiration, phonation, and resonance.1 Refined singing is
then a multivariate task that requires extensive education and
training of these functions.2,3 Singers are expected to attain
and maintain an optimal level of vocal performance to
execute complex phonatory maneuvers.4 Vocal performing
competence includes having a functional, healthy, and aesthetically acceptable voice; consequently, the training demands are
high.5 In addition, the performing voice is frequently affected
by extra loading environmental factors.6,7 Hence, singers are
considered at risk of developing voice disorders,6,7 which can
be quite debilitating for them, physically and psychologically.810 For this reason, elite voice performers are
expected to acquire knowledge about caring for the vocal
mechanism when learning voice technique.1113 Plans to
obtain and maintain vocal health must include proper voice
usage education, particularly for professional purposes.2
Cumulative effects of laryngeal overload
Professional voice users, a larger spectrum in which singers are
included, have a tendency to expose their voices to elevated
risk factors, not always preserving their vocal systems from
the impact of excessive vocal usage.14,15 Major voice risk
factors include using the voice without rest, voice usage in
Accepted for publication July 9, 2014.
Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Voice Foundation Symposium, 2014.
From the *Communication Disorders and Sciences Program, Rehabilitation Institute,
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, IL; and the ySchool of Music, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, IL.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Maria Claudia Franca, Communication
Disorders and Sciences Program, Rehabilitation Institute, Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, Carbondale, IL. E-mail: franca@siu.edu
Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, pp. 1-9
0892-1997/$36.00
2014 The Voice Foundation
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.07.004

nonfavorable organic or environmental conditions, using the

voice in an effortful manner, and reserving a limited time to
recover after illness that affects the voice.1,7 As a consequence, singers may be prone to develop vocal cumulative
effects symptoms associated with vocal fatigue, a condition
associated with excessive voice demands placed on speakers,
in which loss of phonatory abilities develops as phonatory
effort increases.10 Voice fatigue is typically described by an
array of self-reported symptoms related to the overtaxing of
the larynx, leading to a chronic subjective sensation of voicing
tiredness that tends to increase with voicing activity, and in
many cases progresses with time.5,11,1618 These symptoms
are perceived as irregularities and changes in quality of voice,
including restricted frequency and intensity ranges.1922 The
literature reveals that vocal fatigue symptoms may have a
detrimental impact on vocational and economic goals of
professional and preprofessional voice users, and consequently in their quality of life and psychological well
being.2023 It has been suggested that there is a gap between
acquiring voice care knowledge and implementing vocal
hygiene methods among professional users.2428 An investigation conducted with students majoring in voice, acting,
and broadcasting revealed that some future elite professional
voice users fail to take precautions to care of their voice
systems.12 This is compatible with results from an investigation, which demonstrated that radio students and professionals
had a tendency to underestimate the consequences of overlooking vocal hygiene regimens among this population.1
A study using a similar design to the present investigation,
conducted with a population of student teachers, indicated
deterioration of acoustic and aerodynamic voice parameters
investigated through an academic semester.29 Given these
past findings suggesting that ongoing vocal demands can deteriorate vocal quality and stability in a population of student
teachers, the same might be expected of singing students
whose demands and load are comparable or potentially even
more intense.

2
Research questions and hypothesis
The research questions focused primarily on behavior of students majoring in voice through repeated observations of vocal
acoustics and aerodynamics in student singers (a) using the
Computerized Speech Lab (CSL; KayPENTAX, Montvale,
NJ) and the Phonatory Aerodynamic System (PAS; KayPENTAX) in the voice laboratory, and (b) using the Ambulatory
Phonation Monitor (APM; KayPENTAX) throughout a sustained period of time (ie, 7 hours) as a tentative identification
of changes in vocal acoustics and behavior of student singers
in natural settings. Complementary findings were related to
vocal habits as well as subjective feelings and attitudes
regarding voice usage surveyed with the voice profile of singers
(VPS) created for this study (Appendix), and the Voice Handicap Index (VHI; Jacobson et al, 1997), a standardized method
to examine psychosocial aspects of voice usage. It was initially
hypothesized that cumulative vocal demands may have an
adverse effect on the voice of student singers, as verified in association with other occupational voice categories.1,12,29
Because of the high occupational demands, it may be difficult for professional and preprofessional voice users to carry
out proper voice care.28,30,31 Their voice production should be
supported by appropriate education and training, including
identification and elimination of voice overloading
aspects.14,25,26,32,33 As high level and high demand performers, student singers may be at risk for developing voice
disorders; their vocal behavior when singing and when
speaking should be supported by a proper technique.3436
This study was designed to investigate the effects of vocal
demands that typically unfold during an academic semester
on voice quality of students majoring in voice. The research
questions were guided by the inspection of voice parameters
of student singers over an academic semester to understand
the specific needs of singers and student singers. Cumulative
academic-related voice demands that typically unfold during
an academic semester including regular curricular activities
such as singing classes and rehearsals may have a detrimental
impact on voice performance, leading to a risk of developing
voice disorders.
The effects of vocal demands on the voice have been
described in the literature.10,16 A study conducted before this
investigation using a population of student teachers revealed
that cumulative vocal demands throughout an academic
semester had a detrimental impact on voice performance of
participants.29 Although the literature hints that increased vocal
demands impact vocal fold functioning, there is limited empirical data on the relationship between cumulative vocal demands
faced by student singers over the progress of an academic semester. Additional considerations concern a possible attenuating influence of previous voice training on potential effects
of cumulative vocal demands on voice performance.
METHOD
Participants
Eight university music students majoring in voice aged 22
34 years and reporting a healthy voice history participated in

Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, 2014

this study. Two participants were respectively 30 and 34 years

old at the time of data collection, whereas all others were
aged between 22 and 27 years. Despite the slightly broad age
range, participants reported a relatively narrow range of 4
6 years of formal voice training. Four participants were female
and four were male, all of them were native English speakers.
To minimize differences in voice training experience, students
were selected from a group with similar educational background: all had an undergraduate degree in music and were
attending college classes at the same level, pursuing a Masters
degree in music with voice as their primary instrument.14,17
After appropriate approval by the institutional review board,
students were invited to participate in the study.
Materials
Objective instrumentation. Objective voice assessment
was conducted using the CSL, the PAS, and the APM, sophisticated computer-based systems used for acoustic and aerodynamic assessment of voice.3739 The CSL and the PAS
were located in the SIUC Voice Lab. The APM is a portable
device, associated with the remaining voice laboratory
components.
Acoustic voice samples were collected in a quiet room using
a microphone (Shure dynamic model BG with frequency
response of 8514 000 Hz). Voice samples were collected and
analyzed with the application of the Multi-Dimension Voice
Program (MDVP) module of the CSL model 4500 (KayPENTAX) used to capture and analyze voice parameters.37,40
Voice aerodynamic assessment was conducted using the PAS
model 6600 (KayPENTAX). The PAS hardware external module consists of an ergonomic device with bilateral handles with
integrated microphone, face mask, pneumotach, and pressure
transducer.39
The APM (KayPENTAX) provided objective data associated
with voice use generating the acoustic measures of F0 and
sound pressure level (SPL) obtained through an accelerometer
adhered to the base of the participants neck and connected by a
cable to a hardware module worn in a waist pack. The data
collected throughout periods of time were subsequently downloaded to a computer equipped with APM software for
analysis.38
Variables
The independent variable for each of the research questions in
this study was the singing vocal demands (SVD) condition,
defined as cumulative voice demands that develop throughout
a typical academic semester (ie, 16 weeks), including group
and individual singing lessons, rehearsals, and presentations.
The dependent variables included objective acoustic and aerodynamic voice parameters, defined as noninvasive methods
applied in observation and documentation of vocal function.41
The participants were individually assessed in the first, eighth,
and 15th weeks of the academic semester, respectively.
Acoustic measures provide quantitative assessment of voice
quality and vocal function associated with sound waves,4245
whereas aerodynamic measures refer to the motion of air
passing through the region of the vocal folds during phonation.39

Maria Claudia Franca and Jeanine F. Wagner

Vocal Demands on Student Singers

Acoustic and aerodynamic voice parameters generate quantifications of the voice signal that are widely used in voice analysis and
documentation and have been shown to be valuable in discriminating healthy and pathologic voices.4651 In this study, acoustic
and aerodynamic variations that could be connected with effects
from cumulative vocal demands5254 in student singers were
examined, in association with the voice acoustic measures of F0,
relative average perturbation (RAP), shimmer, noise-toharmonic ratio (NHR), voice turbulence index (VTI), and SPL,
and the aerodynamic measure of voice airflow.
Questionnaires. Self-reported information is often applied
in studies that involve behavior change because it generates
prompt and reliable results in investigations involving behavior
estimation and modification.28,55 In this study, self-reported
data were collected primarily to describe participants and alternatively as an attempt to understand possible associations
among voice usage and voice performance.
The VHI56 was developed to estimate feelings and limitations attributed to voice usage to enlighten voice production
from the speakers perspective by gauging impressions
regarding the effects of three broad aspects associated with
voice use: functional, physical, and emotional.56 Although
trained singers may not present a voice handicap, the VHI
was used as an attempt to examine psychosocial aspects of
voice usage with the application of a widely used standardized
method. The VPS, designed for this study, included demographic data, in addition to questions related to vocal behavior,
incidence of vocal fatigue symptoms, and general knowledge of
voice care (Appendix).
Procedures
The participants were tested individually three separate times,
equally distributed at the beginning, middle, and end of the academic semester (ie, first, eighth, and 15th weeks). All data
were recorded in digital files and text files listing summary
measures.38 The testing was applied to one participant per
test day, beginning at 8 AM. On arriving, participants received
instructions regarding the study and signed an informed consent form for participation. Next, they were asked to report
voice-related habits and feelings by responding to the two
questionnaires, VPS and VHI. Participants then (a) had their
voice tested using the SIUC Voice Lab equipment (ie, CSL
and PAS) and (b) wore the APM from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM during
a typical school day including singing lessons and related activities, representing a consistent timeframe associated with
routine and activities attended by all participants involved in
the study.
Efforts to ensure measurement reliability included systematic methods applied in all trials, following procedures
described in the literature by authorities44,57,58 as well as
manufacturers guidelines.3739 The microphone used to
capture acoustic parameters in the voice laboratory was
placed on a stand for stability at a distance of 10 cm from the
lips at an angle of 45 to reduce aerodynamic noise from the
mouth during speech.44 Additionally, each participant was
instructed to stabilize the PAS external ergonomic device by

holding the bilateral handles while placing the mask firmly

against their face, covering the entire mouth and nose.39
Five averaged repetitions of each voice laboratory assessment were recorded in an attempt to obtain reliable measures.5759 Data collection for acoustic (ie, RAP, shimmer,
NHR, and VTI) and aerodynamic (ie, airflow) measures
involved the sustained vowel /a/. To control the variability of
fundamental frequency and intensity across speech sound
tokens, each participant was instructed to produce the vowel
/a/ naturally (ie, without using vibrato) at a habitual pitch
and loudness level for 5 seconds.60 The speech sound period
extending from 1.0 to 3.0 second from onset of each utterance
was then extracted for analysis. Calibration of instruments
before data collection was conducted according to manufacturers instructions.3739
Utterances for acoustic analysis were captured using the
MDVP module of the CSL, a multiparameter acoustic analysis
tool which acquires, analyzes, and displays voice parameters
from vocalizations, such as RAP, shimmer, NHR, and VTI.
Aerodynamic analysis focused on mean expiratory airflow, using the Comfortable Sustained Phonation protocol, the PAS.
Objective data were also obtained from continuous voicing produced during a regular day, throughout a period of 7 hours, with
the use of the APM.
Experimental design
General effects of SVD were examined with the application of
one-way within-participants analysis of variances (ANOVAs)
with repeated measures to data collected in three separated
times equally distributed in the course of an academic semester
to investigate the impact of cumulative demands on voice. Each
participant served as self-control, keeping individual differences constant throughout the experiment.59
Additional comparisons using univariate ANOVAs involving
F0 and intensity measures from the CSL and APM were conducted as an introductory attempt to understand vocal behavior
in diverse settings and tasks. These exploratory analyses were
performed with basis on similarities among acoustic principles
used in the design of both instruments,3739,60,61 despite the
diversity of environments and equipment. Furthermore,
because a change in the level of significance will affect the
risk for both Type I and Type II error, the traditional alpha
level of .05 was selected for all behaviors in this study.6264
RESULTS
This investigation involved four female and four male college students majoring in voice who provided voice acoustic
and aerodynamic data. Averaged statistical profiles generated
by laboratorial voice instruments were applied in statistical
comparisons using SPSS software version 20.0 (IBM Corp,
Armonk, NY). Results related to the effect of cumulative
voice demands on voice parameters of student singers were
analyzed with the application of ANOVAs. Descriptive statistics and normative data from all voice parameters
measured in this study are included on Table 1. Statistical
comparisons demonstrating comparisons across successive
time samples are described as follows.

Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, 2014

TABLE 1.
Descriptive Statistics
Overall

M1

SD 1

M2

SD 2

M3

SD 3

M Total

SD Total

RAP
Shimmer
NHR
VTI
SPL (CSL)
Airflow
SPL (APM)

8
8
8
8
8
8
8

0.605
3.103
0.131
0.046
55.691
0.600
69.636

0.656
0.945
0.012
0.010
4.324
0.349
6.462

0.553
2.910
0.116
0.046
54.397
0.546
106.683

0.540
1.070
0.025
0.009
2.744
0.303
84.536

0.370
3.262
0.124
0.057
54.790
9.782
76.822

0.208
1.021
0.024
0.023
4.768
26.352
5.871

0.509
3.092
0.124
0.050
54.959
0.549
84.339

0.493
0.980
0.021
0.016
3.899
0.287
9.699

Males

NT*

M1

SD 1

M2

SD 2

M3

SD 3

M Total

SD Total

F0 (CSL)
RAP
Shimmer
NHR
VTI
SPL (CSL)
Airflow
F0 (APM)
SPL (APM)

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

132*
0.78*
3.81y
0.19y
0.006y
77.80z
0.133x
131*
77.80z

148.185
0.505
3.172
0.140
0.041
55.830
0.687
162.585
67.602

36.873
0.430
0.584
0.007
0.012
61.183
0.381
39.944
4.372

146.865
0.245
2.542
0.135
0.051
53.355
0.600
186.062
79.142

24.700
0.156
0.682
0.009
0.011
2.765
0.381
25.693
5.295

138.068
0.315
2.900
0.134
0.065
54.295
0.497
174.725
75.280

33.125
0.205
0.515
0.029
0.024
6.341
0.286
26.565
4.152

144.373
0.355
2.872
0.136
0.052
54.493
0.595
174.457
74.008

29.299
0.286
0.604
0.016
0.018
4.961
0.329
30.131
6.531

Females

NT*

M1

SD 1

M2

SD 2

M3

SD 3

M Total

SD Total

F0 (CSL)
RAP
Shimmer
NHR
VTI
SPL (CSL)
Airflow
F0 (APM)
SPL (APM)

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

224*
0.63*
3.81y
0.19y
0.006y
74.00z
0.133x
217*
74.00z

249.105
0.704
3.034
0.122
0.051
55.552
0.512
288.645
71.670

39.231
0.890
1.313
0.010
0.007
2.311
0.345
28.955
8.202

261.725
0.861
3.277
0.097
0.041
55.440
0.492
296.232
134.225

56.665
0.635
1.359
0.020
0.005
2.651
0.248
77.090
120.930

264.586
0.426
3.624
0.114
0.050
55.285
0.505
276.367
78.117

57.330
0.226
1.349
0.016
0.022
3.491
0.195
50.058
7.567

258.472
0.664
3.312
0.111
0.047
55.425
0.503
287.078
94.670

47.341
0.612
1.239
0.018
0.013
2.590
0.244
51.048
69.880

Abbreviations: M, mean; NT*, normative threshold; SD, standard deviation.

* Colton et al (2011).53
y
KayPENTAX (2008).39
z
Hillman & Kobler (1999).68
x
Zraick et al (2011).69

Voice laboratory acoustic parameters

Comparisons involving voice laboratory acoustic parameters
described in the research questions were not found to have statistical significance. Acoustic results were RAP F(2,
14) 1.022, P 0.385; shimmer F(2, 14) 0.449, P
0.647; NHR F(2, 14) 1.950, P 0.179, VTI F(2,
14) 1.709, P 0.217; SPL F(2, 14) 0.193, P 0.826
(Table 2).
Aerodynamic parameters
Additionally, comparisons involving airflow measurements did
not reveal statistically significant results: F(2, 14) 0.988, P
0.397 (Table 3). Further analyses using participants grouped by
gender also did not to lead to statistically significant changes.
APM parameters
Comparisons related to F0 and SPL collected during 7 hours did
not reach statistically significant results. F0 and SPL results
were F0 F(2, 14) 1.265, P 0.313; SPL F(2, 14) 1.442,
P 0.269 (Table 4).

Comparisons of measures collected using voice

laboratory and ambulatory monitoring materials
Comparisons involving parameters collected using diverse materials and tasks were conducted as an exploratory attempt to
further analyze vocal behaviors in student singers. F0 and
SPL measures obtained from laboratorial and ambulatorial materials were compared using ANOVAs. Results revealed statistically significant differences in F0 (F0 F(1, 23) 13.077, P
0.000) but not in SPL (SPL F(1, 23) 0.767, P 0.622;
Table 5). Overall, participants tended to use higher F0 and
SPL in natural conditions.

Sex-specific results
Subsequent examination of data revealed statistical significance
associated with NHR measured in females: F(2, 6) 9.253, P
0.015. Additionally, SPL measured using ambulatory monitoring demonstrated significant differences in males F(2,
6) 5.307, P 0.047 (Table 6).

Maria Claudia Franca and Jeanine F. Wagner

TABLE 2.
Singing Vocal Demands (SVD) on Voice Laboratory
Acoustic Parameters: Repeated Measures
Parameter

Sum of
Squares

F0
Within
127.810
participants
Error
16 566.663
RAP
Within
0.243
participants
Error
1.661
Shimmer
Within
0.499
participants
Error
7.766
NHR
0.001
Within
participants
Error
0.004
VTI
Within
0.001
participants
Error
0.003
SPL
Within
7.040
participants
Error
254.857

df
2

Mean
Square

TABLE 4.
Singing Vocal Demands (SVD) on APM Parameters:
Repeated Measures
Sig.

63.905 0.054 0.948

14 1183.333
2
14
2
14
2
14
2
14
2
14

0.121 1.022 0.385

0.119
0.249 0.449 0.647

0.000 1.950 0.179

0.000
0.000 1.709 0.217
0.000
3.520 0.193 0.826
18.204

Questionnaires
Participants completed the VPS and the VHI questionnaires
when having the first voice measurement. Approximately
50% of the participants reported that they sometimes use their
voice with excessive effort; 25% of the participants reported
having occasional to frequent symptoms of hoarseness and
sore throat. In general, the participants indicated knowledge
of voice care as suggested by reports of following systematic
vocal warm-up techniques (100%), maintaining adequate
body hydration (90%), avoiding environmental and functional
vocal stresses involving background noise and laryngeal irritant
substances (90%), and resting the vocal mechanism as needed
(90%). In addition, 50% of the participants responded that

TABLE 3.
Singing Vocal Demands (SVD) on a Voice Laboratory
Aerodynamic Parameter: Repeated Measures

Airflow
Within
participants
Error

Parameter

Sum of
Squares

df

Mean
Square

Sig.

SPL
Within
6175.610
2 3087.805 1.442 0.269
participants
Error
29 973.613 14 2140.972
F0
Within
1608.524
2 804.262 1.265 0.313
participants
Error
8901.948 14 635.853
Notes: Computed using alpha 0.05. Sig., Statistical significance.

0.555

Notes: Computed using alpha .05. Sig., Statistical significance.

Parameter

Vocal Demands on Student Singers

Sum of
Squares

df

Mean
Square

Sig.

452.345

226.173

0.988

0.397

3204.493

14

228.892

Notes: Computed using alpha .05. Sig., Statistical significance.

they would seek professional help when experiencing voicerelated problems. Moreover, none of them were smokers
(Table 7).
Results from the VHI survey revealed concerns mostly
related to physical and functional aspects of voice. The highest
VHI scores associated with physical aspects of voice referred to
concerns about voice quality variations, whereas functional aspects of voice involved intelligibility and communication
effectiveness.
DISCUSSION
In this study, voice parameters of student singers measured
throughout an academic semester were analyzed. The participants were eight college music students majoring in voice,
with a range of 46 years of formal voice training; four were
males and four females. Although some statistically significant
differences were found in association with results grouped by
sex, negative overall comparisons of acoustic and aerodynamic
measures were verified. Complementary self-reported information provided further insight into voice usage among student
singers. Responses obtained from both VPS and VHI surveys
signaled an overall understanding of the voice mechanism
and the need of its preservation, as well as a focus on adequate

TABLE 5.
Comparisons Between F0 and SPL in the Voice
Laboratory and in Natural Settings
Parameter

Sum of
Squares

df

Mean
Square

Sig.

SPL
Between
87.915
1
12.559
0.767 0.622
groups
Error
261.898 23
16.369
F0
Between
95 514.019 1 13 644.860 13.077 0.000
groups
Error
166 994.473 23 1043.405
Notes: Computed using alpha .05. Sig., Statistical significance.

Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, 2014

TABLE 6.
Singing Vocal Demands (SVD) on Voice Parameters: SexRelated Statistically Significant Results
Parameter
NHR females
Within
participants
Error
SPL APM males
Within
participants
Error

Sum of
Squares

df

Mean
Square

0.001

0.001

Sig.

0.001

9.253

0.015

0.001

9.253

0.015

278.727

139.364

5.307

0 .047

157.575

26.263

Notes: Computed using alpha .05. Sig., Statistical significance.

usage of voice. It seems like, despite indications of eventual

voice fatigue, awareness regarding voice care procedures supported voice stability in this group.
These essentially negative results may imply that previous
voice training may support vocal health, particularly in light
of a previous similar study encompassing a population allegedly
not trained in voice techniques.29 The aforementioned investigation, conducted with a population of student teachers using materials, procedures, and variables identical to this study, led to
results that suggest that in a group of preprofessional voice users
with no prior formal voice training, cumulative vocal demands
that take place through a typical academic semester resulted in
actual deterioration of most voice parameters investigated (ie,
F0, RAP, shimmer, and NHR in the voice laboratory, and SPL
in ambulatory conditions). In addition, responses from identical
questionnaires (ie, VPS and VHI) applied to student teachers revealed a general reduced awareness regarding voice care among

student teachers, which may have a connection with changes

indicating progressive instability in that population, in the
course of an academic semester. These discrepancies between
results from preprofessional groups being prepared to use the
professional voice in two diverse areas (ie, singing and teaching)
hint that formal voice training is supportive to voice stability
and quality.
It is important to consider that singers may belong to a group
whose vocal physiology is somehow resistant because of innate
characteristics and training.32 Nevertheless, these results
corroborate views that indicate that singers, as elite professional
voice users, have an appreciation for a general state of health
that contribute to their work performance, as evidenced by
the self-report data.65
Overall, both male and female participants used higher F0
and SPL in circumstances related to academic environments,
which may be simply due to specific needs essentially pertinent
to singing performance. It is critical to note that comparisons
among samples collected in diverse conditions were conducted
in an effort to clarify contrasting behaviors associated with
voice production in diverse situations. Despite the limitations
involved in attempting to compare measures obtained from
different tasks, settings, and equipment and thus subjected to influences of factors such as diverse microphone signal and
acoustic environment issues,44,63,66 these results may help in
providing future research directions for proper comparisons.
Although it was not the focus of this study to analyze all single possibilities, it is interesting to observe that not every
outcome was consistent with the majority of data. Although
supported by systematic procedures, the method did not create
similar results in every participant. For example, the male who
exhibited the largest overall perturbation values (ie, participant
1) reported having frequent voice symptoms such as hoarseness, sore throat, and persistent throat cleaning, despite

TABLE 7.
Summary of the VPS Responses
Component
Gender
Age
Educational degree
Voice training
Typical environment, loudness, and pitch of voice usage
Estimated hours per day speaking
Smokers
Drink at least four glasses of water a day
Self-reported voice problems

Self-reported voice care

Description
Four females, four males
Range: 2234 y; mean: 26 y
Eight participants holding a bachelors degree
Range: 46 y
Home and school
Range: 212
0
8
Hoarseness: two participants
Voice loss: two participants
Sore throat: two participants
Voicing effort: three participants
Regular vocal warming: eight participants
Regular adequate body hydration: seven participants
Avoid competition with background noise: seven participants
Avoid smoky environments: seven participants
Take voice breaks: seven participants
Would see a doctors as needed: four participants

Maria Claudia Franca and Jeanine F. Wagner

Vocal Demands on Student Singers

TABLE 8.
Individual Values
Part

Gender

Month

F0 CSL

RAP

Shimmer

NHR

VTI

SPL CSL

Airflow

F0 APM

SPL APM

1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8

Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
Male
Male
Male

1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3

139.080
143.814
109.555
222.946
325.064
336.277
288.949
293.412
283.359
185.578
175.695
110.383
275.818
221.354
231.119
100.892
115.844
174.331
208.707
207.070
207.591
167.190
152.109
158.005

1.111
0.464
0.232
0.545
0.319
0.428
0.126
0.818
0.339
0.518
0.142
0.153
0.139
0.546
0.202
0.203
0.252
0.616
2.008
1.764
0.735
0.191
0.122
0.261

3.889
2.068
2.928
3.255
2.616
3.428
1.674
1.700
1.849
3.411
1.925
2.763
2.453
4.632
5.015
2.717
3.402
2.335
4.754
4.163
4.206
2.674
2.775
3.577

0.144
0.130
0.109
0.123
0.097
0.104
0.110
0.068
0.104
0.145
0.135
0.144
0.123
0.109
0.113
0.143
0.148
0.112
0.135
0.114
0.138
0.130
0.127
0.171

0.052
0.037
0.064
0.046
0.040
0.026
0.044
0.036
0.039
0.025
0.047
0.064
0.058
0.041
0.058
0.039
0.060
0.036
0.056
0.049
0.078
0.051
0.060
0.097

56.100
54.350
51.620
52.430
53.010
59.900
56.600
55.470
56.080
64.370
56.790
50.490
57.820
59.120
52.620
52.630
51.550
63.780
55.360
54.160
52.540
50.220
50.730
51.290

0.990
1.150
0.520
0.340
0.430
0.570
1.030
0.860
0.750
1.020
0.540
0.180
0.320
0.340
0.380
0.500
0.430
0.870
0.360
0.340
0.320
0.240
0.280
0.420

168.060
176.390
175.210
264.860
286.460
266.490
296.050
306.260
327.290
199.260
218.180
199.020
267.140
202.210
211.210
105.990
157.470
137.640
326.490
390.000
300.480
177.030
192.210
187.030

68.570
75.260
79.590
67.640
78.300
75.490
62.340
68.130
70.520
65.150
78.150
69.870
76.190
74.960
77.990
63.380
86.880
74.550
80.510
315.510
88.470
73.310
76.280
77.110

indications of awareness and application of habitual voice care

including proper hydration, use of vocal warm-up exercises,
and avoidance of voice irritating environmental components.
Likewise, the female (ie, participant 7) who demonstrated the
largest perturbation values reported similar voice disturbances,
in spite of following common vocal hygiene techniques
(Table 8). These incidences may be explained in part by the
fact that participants 1 and 7 reported having seasonal and occasional allergy symptoms. Furthermore, it is interesting to
note that only 50% of the subjects indicated that they would
seek professional help should they experience vocal difficulties.
Finally, in addition to previously raised concerns regarding
possible inherent characteristics of participants and implications of results generated during ambulatory monitoring, findings need to be interpreted with caution because they derived
from a limited sample. The present study used participants
who belong to a specific environment of voice usage, as a
manner of obtaining experimental control by avoiding confounding factors caused by extraneous variables.61,67
Furthermore, concerns regarding accuracy of self-reported information were addressed by emphasizing confidentially of results and stressing the importance of generating precise
scientific data to implement future plans in voice care.65

CONCLUSIONS
This study attempted to underline the importance of clarifying
and quantifying the relationship of vocal demands and voice
performance among student singers. Results apply to both

educational aspects of vocal health and the development of preventive measures for voice disorders in student singers as well
as in professional and preprofessional voice users in general.
Elite occupational voice users such as singers should be provided with quality information regarding voice care.18,26,65 To
propose effective plans to prevent voice disorders in
occupational voice users, including singers, it is important to
understand aspects of their vocal behavior.
This study attempted to identify vocal behavior of student
singers by examining vocal acoustics and aerodynamics
throughout an extended period with laboratory acoustic and
aerodynamic-oriented equipment (ie, CSL, PAS). Additionally,
following a growing trend of interest in applying devices for
monitoring body systems while individuals perform natural
daily activities, this study used a portable device that collects
objective data throughout extended periods (ie, APM).19,38
Self-reported data surveyed as supplementary information
regarding voice-related aspects from the participants standpoint56 seemed to substantiate indications of voice stability in
this population, apparently in association with extensive formal
training. Additional results of this investigation, conveying the
relationship between direct APM measures and vocal acoustics
and aerodynamics measured by the CSL and the PAS, indicated
different vocal behaviors in the voice laboratory and during
ambulatory monitoring that could be due to performancerelated needs.
It is hoped that the results of this study help in clarifying the
importance of education and awareness about vocal health. It is
also hoped that this study will inspire extended investigations to

8
elucidate the impact of voice training for voice enhancement as
well as a possible associated attenuation effects of vocal overload, particularly among professional voice users.
Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.07.004.
REFERENCES
1. Timmermans B, De bodt M, Wuyts F, Van de heyning P. Vocal hygiene in
radio students and in radio professionals. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2003;
28:127132.
2. Benninger MS. The professional voice. J Laryngol Otol. 2011;125:
111116.
3. Hutchins SM, Peretz I. A frog in your throat or in your ear? Searching for
the causes of poor singing. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012;141:7697.
4. Zeitels SM, Hillman RE, Desloge R, Mauri M, Doyle PB. Phonomicrosurgery in singers and performing artists: treatment outcomes, management
theories, and future directions. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2002;
190:2140.
5. Timmermans B, Vanderwegen J, De bodt MS. Outcome of vocal hygiene in
singers. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;13:138142.
6. Verdolini-Marston K, Titze IR, Druker DG. Changes in phonation threshold
pressure with induced conditions of hydration. J Voice. 1990;4:142151.
7. Vilkman E, Lauri ER, Alku P, Sala E, Sihvo M. Loading changes in timebased parameters of glottal flow waveforms in different ergonomic conditions. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 1997;49:247263.
8. Cohen SM, Jacobson BH, Garrett CG, et al. Creation and validation of the
Singing Voice Handicap Index. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2007;116:
402406.
9. Phyland DJ, Oates J, Greenwood KM. Self-reported voice problems among
three groups of professional singers. J Voice. 1999;13:602611.
10. McCabe DJ. Chant therapy for treating vocal fatigue among public school
teachers: a preliminary study. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2002;11:356369.
11. Braun-janzen C, Zeine L. Singers interest and knowledge levels of vocal
function and dysfunction: survey findings. J Voice. 2009;23:470483.
12. Timmermans B, De bodt MS, Wuyts FL, et al. Poor voice quality in future elite
vocal performers and professional voice users. J Voice. 2002;16:372382.
13. Webb J. Promoting vocal health in the choral rehearsal. Music Educ J.
2007;93:2631.
14. Broaddus-Lawrence PL, Treole K, McCabe RB, Allen RL, Toppin L. The
effects of preventive vocal hygiene education on the vocal hygiene habits
and perceptual vocal characteristics of training singers. J Voice. 2000;14:
5871.
15. Van der Merwe A, Van Tonder M, Pretorius E, Crous H. Voice problems in
some groups of professional users of voice: implications for prevention. S
Afr J Commun Disord. 1996;43:4151.
16. Mattiske JA, Oates JM, Greenwood KM. Vocal problems among teachers: a
review of prevalence, causes, prevention, and treatment. J Voice. 1998;12:
489499.
17. Welham NV, Maclagan MA. Vocal fatigue in young trained singers across a
solo performance: a preliminary study. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2004;29:
312.
18. Verdolini K, Ramig LO. Review: occupational risks for voice problems.
Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2001;26:3746.
19. Hillman RE, Mehta DD. Ambulatory monitoring of daily voice use. Perspect Voice Voice Disord. 2011;21:5661.
20. Kitch JA, Oates J. The perceptual features of vocal fatigue as self-reported
by a group of actors and singers. J Voice. 1994;8:207214.
21. Titze IR. Toward occupational safety criteria for vocalization. Logoped
Phoniatr Vocol. 1999;24:4954.
22. Verdolini K. Critical analysis of common terminology in voice therapy.
Phonoscope. 1999;2:18.
23. Behlau M, Oliveira G. Vocal hygiene for the voice professional. Curr Opin
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;17:149154.

Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, 2014

24. Ilomaki I, Laukkanen AM, Leppanen K, Vilkman E. Effects of voice
training and voice hygiene education on acoustic and perceptual speech parameters and self-reported vocal well-being in female teachers. Logoped
Phoniatr Vocol. 2008;33:8392.
25. Sapir S. Vocal attrition in voice students: survey findings. J Voice. 1993;7:
6974.
26. Sataloff R. Professional voice: the science and art of clinical care. San
Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2005.
27. Vilkman E. Voice problems at work: a challenge for occupational safety and
health arrangement. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2000;52:120125.
28. Hackworth RS. The effect of vocal hygiene and behavior modification instruction on the self-reported vocal health habits of public school music
teachers. Int J Music Educ. 2007;25:2028.
29. Franca MC. A comparison of vocal demands with vocal performance
among classroom student teachers. J Commun Disord. 2013;46:111123.
30. Dishman RK. Compliance/adherence in health-related exercise. Health
Psychol. 1982;1:237267.
31. Roy N, Weinrich B, Gray SD, et al. Voice amplification versus vocal hygiene instruction for teachers with voice disorders: a treatment outcomes
study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;45:625638.
32. Boone DR, McFarlane SC, Berg SL, Zraick RI. The voice and voice therapy. 8th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Higher Ed; 2013.
33. David M. Designing a program of vocal hygiene for singers. J Singing.
1996;53:1520.
34. Ramig LO, Verdolini K. Treatment efficacy: voice disorders. J Speech Lang
Hear Res. 1998;41:S101S116.
35. Andrews ML. Intervention with young voice users: a clinical perspective. J
Voice. 1993;7:160164.
36. Gregg WJ. On exercises physiology and voice. J Singing. 1996;54:4749.
37. KayPentax. CSL instruction manual. Montvale, NJ: KayPentax; 2008.
38. KayPentax. APM instruction manual. Montvale, NJ: KayPentax; 2009.
39. KayPentax. PAS instruction manual. Montvale, NJ: KayPentax; 2010.
40. Gonzalez J, Carpi A. Early effects of smoking on the voice: a multidimensional study. Med Sci Monit. 2004;10:CR649656.
41. Gelfer MP, Andrews ML, Schmidt CP. Effects of prolonged loud reading on
selected measures of vocal function in trained and untrained singers. J
Voice. 1991;5:158167.
42. Baken RJ, Orlikoff RF. Clinical measurement of speech and voice. 2nd ed.
San Diego, CA: Cengage Learning; 2000.
43. Titze IR. Principles of voice production. 2nd ed. Salt Lake City, UT: National Center for Voice and Speech; 2000.
44. Titze IR. Workshop on voice acoustic analysis summary statement. Workshop on voice acoustic analysis sponsored by the National Center for Voice
and Speech, Denver, CO; 1994.
45. Kent RD, Ball JM. Voice quality measurement. San Diego, CA: Singular;
2000.
46. Askenfelt AG, Hammarberg B. Speech waveform perturbation analysis: a
perceptual-acoustical comparison of seven measures. J Speech Hear Res.
1986;29:5064.
47. Deliyski DD. Acoustic model and evaluation of pathological voice production. Paper presented at the Third Conference on Speech Communication
and Technology Eurospeech. Berlin, Germany; 1993.
48. Di Nicola V, Fiorella ML, Spinelli DA, Fiorella R. Acoustic analysis of
voice in patients treated by reconstructive subtotal laryngectomy. Evaluation and critical review. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2006;26:5968.
49. Hamdan A, Medawar W, Younes A, Bikhazi H, Fuleihan N. The effects of
hemodialysis on voice: an acoustic analysis. J Voice. 2005;19:290305.
50. Hodge FS, Colton RH, Kelley RT. Vocal intensity characteristics in normal
and elderly speakers. J Voice. 2001;15:503511.
51. Schoentgen J. Qualitative evaluation of the discriminating performance of
acoustic features in detecting laryngeal pathology. Speech Commun. 1982;
1:269282.
52. Brockmann M, Storck C, Carding PN, Drinnan MJ. Voice loudness and
gender effects on jitter and shimmer in healthy adults. J Speech Hear
Res. 2008;51:11521160.
53. Colton RH, Casper JK, Leonard R. Understanding voice problems: a physiological perspective for diagnosis and treatment. 4th ed. Baltimore, MD:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.

Maria Claudia Franca and Jeanine F. Wagner

Vocal Demands on Student Singers

54. Sapienza CM, Hoffman-Ruddy B. Voice disorders. San Diego, CA: Plural
Publishing; 2009.
55. Baranowski T. Methodologic issues in self-report of health behavior. J Sch
Health. 1985;55:179182.
56. Jacobson B, Johnson A, Grywalski C, et al. The voice handicap index (VHI):
development and validation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1997;6:6670.
57. Behlau M, Alves ML, Oliveira G. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation
of the voice handicap index into Brazilian Portuguese. J Voice. 2011;25:
354359.
58. Bonetti A, Bonetti L. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Voice
Handicap Index into Croatian. J Voice. 2013;27:130140.
59. Scherer RC, Vail VJ, Guo CG. Required number of tokens to determine representative voice perturbation values. J Speech Hear Res. 1995;38:12601269.
60. Karnell MP, Scherer RS, Fischer LB. Comparison of acoustic voice perturbation measures among three independent voice laboratories. J Speech
Hear Res. 1991;34:781790.
61. Huck SW. Reading statistics and research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon;
2000.
62. Skoog DA, Holler JF, Crouch SR. Principles of instrumental analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole; 2006.

63. Winholtz WS, Titze IR. Conversion of a head-mounted microphone signal

into calibrated SPL units. J Voice. 1997;11:417421.
64. Stevens J. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1994.
65. Rubin J, Korovin G, Epstein R. Special considerations for the professional
voice user. In: Rubin JS, Sataloff T, Korovin GS, eds. Diagnosis and treatment of voice disorders. 2nd ed. Albany, NY: Demar Learning; 2003:
583595.
66. Asplund A. How loud was it? A calibration system for voice recording in
clinical and research applications. In: Proceedings of the 26th World
Congress of Logopedics and Phoniatrics. Brisbane, Australia: International
Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics; 2004.
67. Christensen LB. Experimental methodology. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon;
2004.
68. Hillman RE, Kobler JB. Aerodynamic measures of voice production. In:
Ball M, Kent R, eds. The Handbook of Voice Quality Measurement. San
Diego, CA: Singular Press; 1999:245255.
69. Zraick RI, Smith-Olinde L, Shotts LL. Adult normative data for the KayPENTAX Phonatory Aerodynamic System Model 6600. J Voice. 2012;
26:164176.