The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of vocal training on fundamental frequency nasalance measures under selected vowel and frequency conditions.
Methods:
Fundamental frequency nasalance measures were reported for 2 groups of women: 36 trained singers and 36 nonsingers. Each group sang and sustained the vowels (/i/, /æ/, /u/, /a/) for 6 seconds' duration at 3 frequency levels. A 3-second segment from the middle of each vowel was measured to generate fundamental frequency nasalance scores.
Results:
No significant differences were found in the mean fundamental frequency nasalance scores between the trained singers and the nonsingers. The fundamental frequency nasalance scores were significantly higher for front vowels for both groups. Additionally, both groups displayed a pattern of producing significantly higher fundamental frequency nasalance scores at lower fundamental frequencies than at higher fundamental frequencies.
Conclusions:
These findings support the practice of training singers to elevate the velum when singing at high frequencies but not when singing at low ones.
MonahanBJ. The art of singing; a compendium of thoughts on singing published between 1777 and 1927. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1978.
2.
DueyPA. Bel canto in its golden age. New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 1951.
3.
WooldridgeWB. Is there nasal resonance?. NATS Bull1956;13:28–9.
4.
VennardW. Singing, the mechanism and the technic. 3rd ed.Los Angeles, Calif: Edward Brothers, 1946.
5.
McIverWMillerR. A brief study of nasality in singing. J Res Singing1995;52:17–22.
6.
AustinSF. Movement of the velum during speech and singing in classically trained singers. J Voice1997;11:212–21.
7.
BirchPGumoesBStavadHPrytzSBjorknerESundbergJ. Velum behavior in professional classic operatic singing. J Voice2002;16:61–71.
8.
Bell-BertiF. An electromyographic study of velopharyngeal function in speech. J Speech Hear Res1976;19:225–40.
9.
MollKL. Velopharyngeal closure on vowels. J Speech Hear Res1962;5:30–7.
10.
KuehnDPMoonJB. Velopharyngeal closure force and levator veli palatini activation levels in varying phonetic contexts. J Speech Lang Hear Res1998;41:51–62.
11.
LubkerJF. An electromyographic-cinefluorographic investigation of velar function during normal speech production. Cleft Palate J1968;5:1–18.
12.
HouseASStevensKN. Analog studies of the nasalization of vowels. J Speech Hear Disord1956;21:218–32.
13.
BrownWSJrMorrisRJHollienHFHowellE. Speaking fundamental frequency characteristics as a function of age and professional singing. J Voice1991;5:310–5.
14.
MorrisRJBrownWSJrHicksDMHowellE. Phonational profiles of male trained singers and nonsingers. J Voice1995;9:142–8.
15.
SmithBSataloffRT. Choral pedagogy. San Diego, Calif: Singular Press, 2000.
16.
TitzeIRSundbergJ. Vocal intensity in speakers and singers. J Acoust Soc Am1992;91:2936–46.
17.
McCreaCRMorrisRJ. Comparisons of voice onset time for trained male singers and male nonsingers during speech and singing. J Voice2005;19:420–30.
18.
Bell-BertiFKrakowRA. Anticipatory velar lowering: A coproduction account. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research, SR-103/104, 1990:21–38.
19.
FletcherSGFrostSD. Quantitative and graphic analysis of prosthetic treatment for “nasalance” in speech. J Prosthet Dent1974;32:284–91.
20.
Nasometer manual. Lincoln Park, NJ: Kay Elemetrics, 1999.
BressmannT. Comparison of nasalance scores obtained with the Nasometer, the NasalView, and the OroNasal System. Cleft Palate Craniofac J2005;42:423–33.
23.
FletcherSGAdamsLEMcCutcheonM.J. Cleft palate speech assessment through oral-nasal acoustic measures. In: BzochKR, ed. Communicative disorders related to cleft lip and palate. 3rd ed.Boston, Mass: College-Hill, 1989.
24.
Gildersleeve-NeumannCEDalstonRM. Nasalance scores in noncleft individuals: Why not zero?. Cleft Palate Craniofac J2001;38:106–11.
25.
KirkRE. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. 3rd ed.Pacific Grove, Calif: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1995.
26.
LubkerJFMollKL. Simultaneous oral-nasal air flow measurements and cinefluorographic observations during speech production. Cleft Palate J1965;36:257–72.
27.
HajekJ. Universal of sound changes in nasalization. Boston, Mass: Blackwell Publishers, 1997.
28.
AwanSN. Phonetographic profiles and F0-SPL characteristics of untrained versus trained vocal groups. J Voice1991;5:41–50.
29.
BarricheloVM OliveiraHeuerRJDeanCMSataloffRT. Comparison of singer's formant, speaker's ring, and LTA spectrum among classical singers and untrained normal speakers. J Voice2001;15:344–50.
30.
CarrollLMSataloffRTHeuerRJSpiegelJRRadionoffSLCohnJR. Respiratory and glottal efficiency measures in normal classically trained singers. J Voice1996;10:139–45.
31.
ClevelandTFStoneREJrSundbergJIwarssonJ. Estimated subglottal pressure in six professional country singers. J Voice1997;11:403–9.
32.
GelferMPAndrewsMLSchmidtCP. Effects of prolonged loud reading on selected measures of vocal function in trained and untrained singers. J Voice1991;5:158–76.
33.
MorrisRJBrownWSJrHicksDMHowellE. Phonational profiles of male trained singers and nonsingers. J Voice1995;9:142–8.
34.
RothmanHBBrownWSJrSapienzaCMMorrisRJ. Acoustic analyses of trained singers perceptually identified from speaking samples. J Voice2001;15:25–35.
35.
HoitJDWatsonPJHixonKEMcMahonPJohnsonCL. Age and velopharyngeal function during speech production. J Speech Hear Res1994;37:295–302.
36.
YanagisawaEEstillJMambrinoLTalkinD. Supraglottic contributions to pitch raising. Videoendoscopic study with spectroanalysis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol1991;100:19–30.
37.
Wilson-PauwelsLAkessonEStewartPASpaceySD. Cranial nerves in health and disease. 2nd ed.Hamilton, Canada: BC Decker, 2002.
38.
TannerKRoyNMerrillRMPowerD. Velopharyngeal port status during classical singing. J Speech Lang Hear Res2005;48:1311–24.
39.
FinkelsteinYShapiro-FeinbergMTalmiYPNachmaniADeRoweAOphirD. Axial configuration of the velopharyngeal valve and its valving mechanism. Cleft Palate Craniofac J1995;32:299–305.
40.
McHenryMA. The effect of increased vocal effort on estimated velopharyngeal orifice area. Am J Speech Lang Pathol1997;6:55–61.
41.
YoungLHZajacDJMayoRHooperCR. Effects of vowel height and vocal intensity on anticipatory nasal airflow in individuals with normal speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res2001;44:52–60.
42.
WarrenDW. Compensatory speech behaviors in individuals with cleft palate: A regulation/control phenomenon?. Cleft Palate J1986;23:251–60.
43.
WarrenDWDalstonRMMayoR. Hypernasality and velopharyngeal impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J1994;31:257–62.
44.
WarrenDWDalstonRMMorrKEHairfieldWMSmithLR. The speech regulating system: Temporal and aerodynamic responses to velopharyngeal inadequacy. J Speech Hear Res1989;32:566–75.
45.
SundbergJTitzeISchererR. Phonatory control in male singing: A study of the effects of subglottal pressure, fundamental frequency, and mode of phonation on the voice source. J Voice1993;7:15–29.
46.
TitzeIR. On the relation between subglottal pressure and fundamental frequency in phonation. J Acoust Soc Am1989;85:901–6.
