Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A MM OF mmtmim AXD VOCAL IMXHSITR
AP5H0VBPI
FFFSF FWWILBAR
A.„. ,,, »J 10*jQ,B3££UL^ E S F W I R E E E W
EVER OF FLSA TTI W L R A I O ® I T»»P«RIMA* m ¥P®#«LSR «»£"
J „ I AAIRISF m *rnmxmn'mmQi —
A SfTfW 0? TA0¥XZ£*SXSSS7K&TX0 »II fQl lW
AHP VOCAII I M M I F T
t a n a s
Presented, to the Gfntoet® Uoonoll of the
Swfch ?*j»» Stint# t fe iws i iy tn P»rtUl
FalflXXatnt of %im
Ww tfa* 0»®p®« of
MAS9BR Of SeiBiai
0»ttltott if B. g<
Dinton, ¥•*»•
June,'1965
m&m m c o n n
p®®»
list OF m u m s . IT
U m OF ItLffSTHkTIONS • <f
Cbsptav
i* urrsoxyjonoM akd bacxoroohd . * . * i
I u BtJ&JKC*S, BQUXPMtW*, A ® PROCIIDURKS 14
in, Rsani/rs AIIP ANALYSIS of *HK mm • • • • • • • 14
If. SUMHAHY JU© OOHCmiOMS . . . . . • 38
&M1M3C . 44
RIBLIOORAPHSf 49
ill
LZ8T OP TABLES
Teble fug®
I* The Mean Xnteaeifcy Dlffereooee in BeoibeXe of VooeX ftrodaetlon* tm %im Mm*til* U n d Condition • • « • • • • • • • • • * * 1#
11* 9ht Meen Xnteneltjr Oiffmmmm In DeelbeXe of VooeX Produotlone for the FiXtered Condition « • 87
HI# fl» i«#o Intensity Derietlone of VoeeX ?rodaetloae Under Condition* of FIX* teving end Hon«*flXterlng • * • • • • • « • 88
IV# The Neen Intensity Devi*tlone of VooeX Prodnotlone for the Twined »«d tfntrelned Orotape * « • • • • • • • « • • » 90
V. Reak Order VefeRtetion of fleet VoweXe Chcnt-lag itfin Intensity DiffteteaM* Uttdev the It oa« filtered Condition for Weltied end Untrained Group# . • » . M
?1# Rank Order Tabulation of feet Vovele Show* lag Meea Xnteneltjr Differencee for the fxwlned Group Under Coadltloae of FIX* tering end Hon-fllterlng • M
t*
U m OF ILLUSTRATIONS
H & m ftojp
Xm SehMM t u Dl*gr»a of fete# fcqpljpntAt £*plof*d la Production and Recording of Spteeh a«»pi9« » • • • • • • • » • « • is
QmffUM I
iwmmmtim sm MQmmum
tho baalo mnmtomy of tho fammm wtc© aoaalata of
parlit tho aotlvator which aapplloa air pew#r# tho vibrator
which tranaforma W m flow of sir Into oo«u»d aad torn
m m m t o r whloh omplifloa ooaad by rolnforooitoat* Howovor,
voleo production In both apoaklag and singing ii aado poa-
alblo only through • highly apoalallaad and ooordlaa tod
iatorootioa of thoao roaplratory traot orgima.1
Tht axtromoly roptd variation* la tho production of
"pitch* voloa* and quality «ro only poaalblo la aoch an
extraordinarily ooaipllaatod apparatus*"8 Tba oo~oporatloa
of auMoroua antaolaa controlling tho air ptipini In tba
pulaonary *yato», and reaoaaneo la tho oavltloa of th*
mo*tii ®wl tho pharynx, la ealXod for In tho produetloa of
volco* At tho oono tl«o# tho iatrlnalo and axtrlnolo It-
ryngeoX anaaoloo ooaataatly adjtiat tho olaatlelty, ahapo,
•ad poaltion of tho vocal fold*. Tho latrloa ta aaaoKblaflo
*!*&*/ lfcad by |>* 4d9»
!• Kuodl, *Soao Obaarratlon* on tho HIotology and tion of th© larynx**
Otology. LKXXXX (January, or X»ctiwok»ct «a&
of organ* aad misoXas Involwd la rooaX production i i ax~ s
prasvad by n v t n l authora* Including Judaon aad 4 &
Lftvln* and Povtmna**
Hot uaXltoa other burasn ac t iv i ty , tha aovaaant, oo~
ordination, and eoatvoX of tha organ# aad *tsaoXea invoivad
la vooaX produotloa la ta gra tad throagh aaaaory f#®d«
baok eiret t l ta . Thu«, dorlag aaqaaatlaX aotloa, lafov»a«
Uoa l i oooataatly peX&yad to tfaa bra la eoaoaralag tha
pro gra at and tha a f fao t of tfeaaa aovaaaata whiah la la tarn
utad In tfaa control of sabaaqpaat aatloa* I t I s @n»reliy
agraad that tha sanaory oireui ta wtaioh ava importaat l a aa-
tab 11 shins and maintaining tha saqttaatlaX aetioaa of spaaeh
and voloa * n ( tha auditory, the kinaathatla* sad tha to#*
tlXa faad-back oiroalta* Prjr,7 nod Jttdaoa sad Waa*ar^ ha*a
contributed to tha understanding of theaa re la ted fu not ions
of the m i n i a»rwu» aystes.
in dpi oar Jodaon »ad Andrew Thornsa *oarer, Voloa ftftimwi. (Haw Torn, I W i * » . AMP*
*S»ath»aial X* Levin, "AppXied Anstowy •«* Physiology of the Vole* and Speech Jiaohaalsaa," foico §aX Sfltwfr PI a-
*0aopa»a Por*«aaa# "Tha Paysiology of Phoaetion." Tha © f f i * 4 3 4 a * 3 2 ® - U D 0 U u , n a " 7 ' " 6 T 7 7
®D. B« Fry* "Speech a ad h*n&XB&0* The Journal of
k m m t o M SM s m s k * * « * u « o r , w w l ? mr 5 *** • f M S * * PP« 444-446. aJu4eon aad leaver , fo lee SolemNi, ?p« 87-ao«
Vha lnpoptiaoi of it*## faad-baoic ayatama la faolXl*
tating tha artioalatory aapaots or apoaeh baa vaoolvad ooa-
aidarabXa at t ta t ion la voioa aolaooa Htaratura . Aaaag
thoae who few?# ©ontributod are »«baf* Tjpavla#*0 and lonag#^
f l » pvlaolpaX mamm of infonaatlon oonoarnlng tb®> latavao*
tloa b*tv«aa mm&wf olroulta »aA articulator?- parfoyaaae*
baa baaa tha study of tb® affaota of doXayad auditor? food-*
baefc on apaaob output# BXaott,18 tfairbaoka,13 and Laa1* to
alto feat a f)a« bay* daaumatratad that uada* auoh oonditioaa
artlouXatloa, •peach aound duration, fuadanaataX fraoaoaoy*
and tha aound praaaara XavaX aharaotorlatioa of apaaoh
%• P. Haba, "Diaouaaioa of tha {foto«klaaaathatlo ItetfcoA of Ssaoeh Gorraotion." f lu Qofttttoift* of &KfiS# * v (Ootobor, 1939),
8« Travia, *Tba ?»dagogioaX Sigalfloaaeo of tba ttoto~klaaaa thatie Matbod la Bp*mh Tbmvpr, Jonntml of SB—«h f (6*pt—b—» 194G), i0X*®®I*
lHt« H« Yoaag, *fh» Xoto*K:taaaath«tlQ ttathod of fip—afe *m tolas** figs *0i>§a»l of Sjjiftfllj fiMMiftfix* v (topl—tofty* X940)§
*®Jobft *• BXaok* "Tha Kffaot of DaXayod fclda-Toaa apoa VooaX Est® a ad Xataaftltor," imxmX gf Spt—h sM m m i m - *|gf# XVI (Xarob, X95X); 8e-i«0^r
**Waat Fatrbaaita* tt8rataawtlo Kaaaaroh la Bxparloan-taX Fheaatloa* Fart X* A Tmwf of tta» Spaaoh MaehaaiOR aa
M ^ U u l S ^ i S l ffiSK'LS? ~ Mmlm BJBEteS#
^Barnard a* Ua# "ArtifloiaX Statta*," Journal of Sb—«h and H—rta* Pl—rdara,. XVX (Marob, • l9ft£J7W«7
output are aodlf ied* Rlngel,1® SUnabfUld-llawlc,1® ?st»
ton#*7 #u4 other reeeorohera tew i s M i M d t t e cont r ibu t ion
of t a c t i l e #o& iclneftthetlo feed-baolc l a f a o l l l t a t l n g »!«•
t lou la t lon* I t I t generally agreed tha t d l r e o t l o n l a cor*
r e o t t a c t i l e and felneathetle recogni t ion can beoooe dotal*
nant over defiaetlve f#«4»fea#t pe t te roe wrongly acquired*
fh» refer*nee» o i led from t t * l i t e w t w r e «<m«MMmlag
the r e l e t l oneh ip between apt*eh and eenaory fo#d-b«ok gye-
tevtn a re thoae found only In the wore widely ueod textbooks
end profess iona l journela and In no way exhaust the r e f e r *
eneee wede througi the body of speech pethology l i t e r a t u r e ,
but should s u f f i c e to i l l u e t r a t e t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p l a
obviously reoognised by apeeeh pathologis ts*
Although reaeareh e f f o r t s whloh ehow the apeeeh neoha*
s i ® to be w r y esna l t ive to In te r fe renee with aenaory
fee4»bsok e l r o u i t a have beea ex tens ive , r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e
reeeareh hea been oonduated to assess the cont r ibut ion o r
the l a t e r a o t l o a of theae o l r o u l t a In voloe production*
*®Robert I*# Klngel# m E f f e c t s of Tee t i l e bad Audi* tery Al tera t ion* on Speech Output," | ou r»3 l of end iiMrliM mm&mh, vx (December, l i i l l #
l 6&sre S*tnohfieldr»Hswk, "Xoto-Xlnsesthetlo Training f o r Children with apeeoh Handles pa.* Journal of Soeeoh Die* ordere . VII (Deeeaber, 19*2),
*7Preneee K* Fetton, "A Comparieon of the Kinaestbet le S e n s i b i l i t y of Speeeh-defeotlve end *orasl«epesklng Chll*
&£ I B J E S t e l # (d»omK»», 1948),
The apeclfla attributes of the voloe itaelf ere gener-
ally reoojgnlied e» pitoh, quality* end loudness* Theee
eh*raoterlatlas *ir@ »id to lend little wore than shade* of
meaning to apeeoh.1^ Perhaps the paucity of research in
this »m» m*y tee attributed to tht» reason* Srodnlts
points out that "the study of aowal sod disturbed s pee oh
with all Its implication baa absorbed m aatoh time and
enargy la research and therapy thet the problems of the
volo« are frequently neglected#"1® Alto, as ?erkins points
oat, moat epeech clinicians #re highly "sound conscious\
unfortunately, not aeny mmm to bo wry voice conscious**80
"Whatever the res son* voice therepy hss rensined largely sa
art snd ssems to be predicated upon the Intuitive incllns*
tlons of the thsreplete#"8*
In goners1, tha present procedures used la voice
thswiy often consist of teething the patient tectmiipes
of auditory monitoring for control of pitch aod loudness*
Frequently, aa an initial etep la volm therapy, tha
idOeorfia Matthe*a Maraha11» "A Study of Kinesthetic Feedbeck and Vocal Intensity* nnpablishsd oaeterU thesis* School of Medicine* Venderbllt University* tfeshvllle* Venaseses* 196,% ?• I*
18f?rladrlch 8* Brodnlts* "Voice Problem* of the Aator an& stntMP." Joarn»X of ggjjjah egi H««rtng Pt»oraor». XIX C»®««»si>®r# X§»|* sr8«
OA " *• H. Perklne* **he challenge of ifunctlonel Llaotv
dere of Voloe," jtsmttook of & m m b Pathology. edited by Z m 1* frsvis I w S , XBWT, K S87.
^Marshall* "A Study of Kinesthetic Fssdbsok and Vocal Xntenelty* p* 1*
patiant I t ixpdMd to * taaaaura of ear training vhioh a*-
phaaiaaa pi toll and loudoaaa diaorimioation* Tha primary
objaotivo of auoh traialag i s to lncroasa tbo pa t ioa t ' s
ab i l i t y to aonltor mm aooaratofy varioua or salaotad
pitch and/or loudnaaa lara la utlXiaiag auditor? food-baok:*
Tha inportanao of auditor? f*od~baok la «et«bli»hing, ooo-
t r o l l i n g aad maintaining tha voool a t t r ibute* of plfcoh ana
Xoadaes* cannot bo denied, Hoeever, *t£>erepieta ming
theae teohnlquee have noted %tet steajr voice defectives ep*
perentXjr how «» exoeeeive mmnut of diffiouXty oontrollIns 22
fcheae vooeX attribute**" feiaiXarix, in the treetaent of
artlaulatov? defective a, the laitieX plan of therapy 1* to
ioareeee the p t U i n t U ®mmmm of auditory etlmull. l a
t reet ing putieata with ertiouXetory dieordere* the thera-
p is t attempt# to tmm*m tha paUtn tU evereaeea of other
feed-beak clroult* whloh be way u t i l i s e la monitoring tad
correcting defective • peach petterns* fba« the s r t ieu ie*
tory headloeppad individual, la taught to reoognise aod ut i*
l t M visual clues, tsotiXe«klneethetlo eeneetiofia, «a « i l l
aa auditory sensations. Training la the ue« or these sddi~
t lonal sensory modalities oonstltute* a m j o r eaphsels of
sr t iouiet ion therapy* ftaa des i rabi l i ty of using th i s muXt&»
aonaory epprosoh la artloaXatloa therapy has boaa ver i f ied 88Jew &iseneon and SbaXani th Xaeteln* "An Irrroetlea-
tion into the Ability of Voioo Defectives to Meorialnate A»oag Differences in ?itoh and Loudoeee* #oa»a l of Sneeoh <u*» sasxm mams&> *«" t )*»»••*>•». i»wj;W?.
toy Stlnohflald-Hawk,9* Pattoa,8* Xallouk,*® tad Van Rlpsa&®
Howsvsr, l a vols# tharspy, the pa t l an t , e f t a r • psrlod of
• s r I n t n t n g I s sxpsctod to raproduoa and •s tab l l sh s nor*
a da quote volo* quality relying, for tho s o i t pi*lp aspon
auditory fftiUssttoa of only audi lory fs®d*tf#«i§£
l a f0ie® tharspy nay wsll bo on* of tb* ? i i | 9 » i fo r ths «p»
p»rent Xsok of suoosss tharaplats ha»s aitparlanosd In tlsatr
afcfcampta to oorroot phonatory dtaordors#
I t would sppssr tbst u t i l i s a t i on of taet l ls«kls*sthst«
lc s s woIX s i auditory fssd-bsok would too of
bonaflt whsn attwaptlns to correct voles disorders,
both the auditory a ad ttotlXs-klnssthatlo sensations ara jg*t
prsssnt whsn voles la producsd# Ths sooustlo ssnsstlons
of ths roloa »m easily dlsosrnad both by the apsaksr and
ths l l s t s n s r ; on tba otbar hand, klnsathst ls asnsatlons am
much *ors d i f f i c u l t to Idsntlfy* Parkins hal low s that ths
majority of physiological rsadjuatwsnta oas w**t malca to 8*Btlnohflsld-Hawk# *8oto*»Klftseath»tls Training for
Chlldran with Spaaob Handicaps** pp« 36**860*
®^?stfton# *A Comparison of Xlnssstfastlo Sensibility** pp» 308-510.
2alioak„ Visual-Tactile By a tan of Phonstlosl X?Xb?]uSa t l X§S4) J | ? 1^3oT: — telii £lSBS£Ea*
^Char les fan Hlpsr and John V. Xrwla* 'Voles and &i culatlo?! (isn«lo»ood C l i f f s , Haw Jerssy, l i l f f f*pp*
mm *fJ«dson and Isaver, Toio# p. 78.
vvj pitch, qunllty, end tuts! ocour l a laryngeal
end pharyngeal »mm which mm devoid of klncethetlo
Mat* In dlMMMlng nornel vooel production, ho says, *«•
havo l i t t l e , if any, eoneeloue eeoee of moventnt or tension
la the anaolet of tot* larynx not storym#®88
Th* fact that on* way not ba ooneoloualy twar® of the
kinesthetic •aneetlona arising during phonatloa, doaa not 09
mean that they play no pert in vocal production* ' Repeated
references ere nede la the 111ernture on voice to kine®-SIC!
thetic Maiftt lwi aoaaoa to e f f i c i ent voice production*
Jadeon end fteever state that "because one aeldou tries to
ralae a«ch aeneetlons to a eoneeloue level , they ueuelly
give one bat l i t t l e Information#^ Further obeervetlone
on this aspect of vocal oontrol eho* that by concentreted
e f for t . Information can bo obtained from kinesthetic n a n *
tlone and with practice theee aeneetlons can be raleed to e M
high degree of coneoloueaeeeft
I t I t reeeoneble to essntse that tho teotHe«kloesthet»
lo feed-back olrcalt pleya • aore In portent role In the ^Perlcios, "The Challenge of Functional Dleordere of
Voice," p. 987, UH
"Judson ind. I i m t , M S S SoUnoa. p. 78, I . town, Xntrodaotlon J60 Sg—oh (Uentopid^,
Meseeehusette, 1956)# pp» 24-2S. 51Jfcdeon end teever, Voice Science. p. 78.
Ib^do
voioo of t troiaod singtr tbrnI i t doos In ths aatrsiaod
voloo siaoo tho slapmp wast porfont with & grostor ooasist~
oaoy of voosX production thsa 4 m i tho spoototr# Tho singes1
Is confronted with • vsrioty of sooustiosX oaviroamats in
hi* psrfovnsaoo, yot bo I s obi® to maintain roXfttivs ooa-
s is toat voooi ohsrsotorist ios «na though savi~
roaaoatsX sounds » r sXtor h i s suditory perception. Far~
thor ovidoaoo of the trsiaed ftiag»r*s tsotiXe»klaosthotio
sbiXity in vtkMiwd try X*via« '8® eoatoads thst *on sooas-
t los l ly trostod roan i s more pXessiag to § Xistoaor boooaso
the toaadff oont m m oXeerer sad louder, PeredoxiasXXy, sb
sooostloeXXy trestod roo» mmj bo considered »pa»rf by the
e r t i e t for ho dooo aot hour htaseXf «oXX ead his voioo
seoas doXX sad fX#t» t t^ Vhet Is Biased I s tho ref lect ion
of the sound from the wrsXls* tho norloi ainger, not hosr-
lag hi* voioo, toads to beoono disturbed oad s t a r t forcing X4
his voioo, i f hs thinks tho production i s poor* loodrutff
msiatsias thst some siagors to thoir I n i t i a l porforsaeaoo In
sa soousticsXXy trsetod auditorium find i t to bo s disturb*
iag experience. However, tho trsiaed singer Xeeras to reXy,
aot apoa ths sound of h i s ova voioo ss ho hosrs i t , but ap*
oa tsotiXo«lcta*sthetle seasstioas ia maintaining s good
^Xbld,
m
vote® quality art U , fkmmtmm, not eoaoaraad with how ha MS
ban*® hlnaalf. Lavln roporta aladlar axparloaoas or
guaat artlata la thalr first parfomaaoa m tb« MatropoXl*
tan Opar* ataga which is acoaatlca U y traatad.** Vataoa
•tataa that tba taQtUa~kla»ath»tlc fa*d~toaofc utllliad tor
•xparlaaood aingare 1« dovalopad ta a high degraai « • • w q #n oxtrawaly flan alagerU vol©# t» Uttia dlatartood toy uncesfehetiling tba 1*171131 with eoeilm. «ht*ti throw# m m m U m m * organs la tn® auutou* aar-*•«•» <»t of gaar, tout does not tffaot tU® a«as» or*
pins In the mccles sod taadoaa*"'
ftm Htaratura la tba fiald of ®»®1# auggaata that
training and davaloping a taotUa~kloaathatlc ivsnmii and
control la utilised la singing laa traction* ¥ha extent to
•blob «a artist la taught to rely upon the *fssl" of bit
vocal Kscbaaleai la eoatroverslslf however, the feat that
Hinging la not purely a re flax action tout la alao an eo*
quired skill and 81*% from the development of « ae*ir<wit*a-
cular ooordiao tioa, la recognised toy aoet professions! JM
singing lastyuetevs* For tba matt partt a aInger la
to control bla voice toy relying upon teetile and
kinesthetic oue«. Lsvia auggsats that It la the combination
S^Xatsrvlew witti wiUlam Woodruff, Hesldeat Tenor, $aiveralty of Ohiosgo, Delia*, ?«»«» March *6, 1964,
^Levin, "Tba Professional 8la@ar#* p. 469*
^Lavln, "The Professions! &lnger»" pp. 495~4J4.
n
of feeling# and mamtiom whlX® singing, which gradusllj Kg
bulXds up th# singer1® t®©ta»ltu#*
Stsnlty, la describing sensations or fi«Uage fop wp»
tain ton**v reported that out ton* osy fee f e l t in the fore~
pert of the heed while snothsr In the bsok of ths hMd* and
so on#*0 Woodruff, In tsaohlng w i « j , sxpXslns th is oon-
eept i t "ton® pXsoswsnt#* Aeoording to Woodruff, i f ths
student sthieves good resultc by lnsglning his too* I s
placed a t s oirtfiln point, th».t la six that oounts.41 fhas
in actual perform nee the trained singer esn rssdlly seln*
tsin spseifle volelngs sithough ths ocouetio envlrom&ent
does not permit him to monitor his voloe accurately through
ths auditory fesd»bsok circuit* On the other head, the
i |i«feir tends to rely heavily upon auditory feetf-back sad
in doing so he adjusts his voles to a variety of sooustlosX
backgrounds in order to conpsnsste for ths chsngss hs hears*
Ma re ball1 a Investigation of the roXs of tsstll*«kinss»
tht t lo Monitoring la vocal production suggests that singers
sre dors capable of u t i l i s ing tsotile«klnesthstie feed-back
when controlling voosl intensity in ths presence of ovsiv
riding seeking tones then were untrsiasd persons.** mBM* 4%ouiX»s Stenley, "the Science of Voles,* Joawisl of
ths ftwiBitUii iipm^sitt* ocxi u p m , x»ax), 4oa* i n t e r v i e w with vixxien Woodruff, Resident IPs nor.
University of Ohlesgo, Dsllsa, Tsxss, March 86, 1964«
^Marshall, "A Study of Xlnsethetle Feedback snd Vocal intensity*
m
m «*y be mo a from the foregoing, investigators heve
been concerned with fseasory feed-bsek In both ar t icula t ion
end voool production,. although in th« l a t t e r cese enphsste
has been centered largely on the role of auditory pcroep*
tlon »nd conjeoture regarding the contribution* of t e c t l l e -
kinsethetlc f*ed~becfc» I t i t tubalt ted thet teatile«kln*e«
thetlo monitoring sad I t s pole in irocel production »e r i t s
considerable study before I t# application say be thoroughly
exploited in c l in ics1 tho**py«
Purpose
Whethsr persons with trained voioee learn to rely mm
upon teetlle~iclaesthetlo eenestion* la controll ing the to*
eel neehenlsn then do untrelned i s e Question not
«severed la the l i tereture* investigation of th le subject
oould revolve eround the influenoee of perceived vooal
<***llty on voosl production. Such l e the ooneern of th le
etudy. Basically the purpose of thle study le to ooxspere
pereone with trelned voices end persons with untrained
voioee in the i r s b l l l t l e s to u t i l i s e teot l le-klneethst le
feed-back when afeteapting to control vooal in tensi ty .
In order to eonduct th is Investigation, en sttempt
wil l be aede to enever three speolflo questional
1# Whet ere the effecte* If sny, of cer tain a l t e re -
tlon* of sn auditory atlaulue during vooal production on
vooel in tens l ty t
&3
e« Are the effects?, If any* of filtering tine auditory
stimulus nor© pronounced In fell® ttatofelMkl than in the
trelned voice?
5* is tfa* 4j®gzm of ch»oge, if ftny, e function of tb§
vowel type being altered?
CHAPTER II
SOBJECTS, EQUIPMENT, AID PROCEDURES
Subject#
Twenty normal hearing subjects were selected for this
experiment. They ranged in age from nineteen to twenty*
four years with a mean chronological age of 21,1 year®.
The subjects were divided into two groups according to vo-
cal ability, training, and experience* Ten of the subjects
had no voice training or professional experience. They
will fee referred to as the "untrained group® in the remain-
der of this thesis* The remaining ten subjects, comprising
the "trained group,* were selected on the basis of voice
training, professional experience, and availability. The
criterion for selection of trained voices was the ability
of the subject to demonstrate smooth control ©f register
breaks. The trained singer attempts to maintain an "even
soala11 In changing from one register to another) that is,
he strives for a smooth transition of toss quslity between
registers* The singers who have the sblllty to isalntain
the same quality of tone in changing from one register to
another are believed to have developed s high degree of
laryngeal control.1 Individual instruction and professional
^Interview with William Woodruff, Resident Tenor, University of Chicago, at Dallas, Texas, Msrch 26, 1964*
14
15
uptrltBoe ««r« ilio consldsswd »» Imports nt oritorla la
th» Mli«tton of ttas trained group* Howsysr, singing
sblllty *•# glvon prsosdsnoo In salting Nliatloni* Thoss
subjsots ssXsatsd for tta* sxpsrlsentsX group wsrs soXloltod
from s group of profssslonsl slngsrs* Of ths tsn subjsots
in ths trslnsd group, six hsirs sung profsssleasily*
svsrsgs snount of profssslonsl oxpsrleno* psr psrson
approxlastsly 8«4 yt»rs* All of ths tamtMkl subjsots hsd
rooslvsd Individual Instruction vhloh rsngsd in 4a rot Ion
from two to sight srt«M«
A for* dsvlssd to bslp pro*Ids bsakground Information
of trslnlng end sxpsrlsnes in tinging vss o ample tsd by ssoh
subjsct. fit# informtlon gsthsrsd fro» thoss imem Is In*
oludsd In ths Appendix* This form *ss ussd 11 « gulds la
ths sslsotlon snd sistohlng of ths trslnsd sad ontrslnsd
groups ss to ssx and »go«
T ho subjsots In ths unto* load group wore flvt mslss
and flw fsaslss imaging In ®@g from tiinote&n to M n t y *
thro* yssrs with » m b m chronologies1 sgs of 21*0 yssrs*
Ths sxpsrlasntsl subjects flvs m U i snd ftws fsaslss
who rsngsd In ago frosi ninstssn to t»snty~four jrttrs with
s nssn ohronologlasl «§g® of 21# X yours*
Ho subjsat hod sny previous sxperlsnos with frsqusnsy
filtering#
During ths rscruifcraent of the subjsete, tbsy wsrs ln-
forasd only thst voosl responsss undsr dlffsrsnt auditory
oondltlons were to bo lnvsstlgstsd*
m
stguipnaiiv
A tme»V9m •udloXogl«tI tooting •»!*»# Mod#l iflot by
Xnduotrlol Aoonotloo aoetp«flQr» Xn«», contolnlng on *Ui»on
Model 8U» ond rni at bwdphonoo with «*43/jyt
ouobtoao woro uood to obtain » blnouvol » pooch roooptlon
threshold rt» oooh oubjoct.
The experiment «•• oondaoted la the fiUfii# Adislnis*
trot ion Audlologleel Glinte# ¥et#r»n« Adalnletretton Moo*
p l t o l * Dellsa, te*ee» the presents tlon of the experiment# 1
conditions woo eoooapUshsd Iteoiigfe the use of Electro-
Voiee SHuttir microphone®f Model CM oaA ffifi 99 heedphones
with W-41/A1 oushlons* Fre^ienoy filtering woo provided
by on Allison PreQoenoy /liter Model 8f> In oonjiinotlon with
the AUlioa 31B eudloneter* fM« filter it oellbreted to
provide o 3 doelbol drop In Intensity at the doolrod fro-
<*tenoy out«off oad o 90 doelbol drop la intensity for eseh
ootsve ebove tho out-alt point* uollbvotlon of the instru-
ment! woo oheotced prior to aonduotlng the experiment with o
Brttel ond XJm* Sound Level Meter, aadel W W ehioh employs
» Brftel ond KJeer mlorophone, node I 4191* tho eound pres-
sure levels at eeoh frequency » • » foand to bo within tho
tolerenoe levele etenderdlsed ond e p e o l f i e d by tho msntifeo* 4$
tarere of tho oQulpaont* Samples of oooh subject'®
miMim
If
vooeXisstloas W9m recorded on »n Astpex #00 tope reoorder*
ftw sound pressure readings were *»d* a t l l l a l i i f tfe® Ampex
tap® recorder wad the BrfteX sad Kjeer Sound Level Metei> la
sooordsaoe with the procedures outlined % the manufactur-
e r s . 3 A saheastio diagram of the equipment employed I s
t h i s experiment I s »b9iA ea Figure X«
Procedures
A monitor*! 11 w Tale® speeoh reception threshold
(8R?) using the spondee auditory test W»l l i s t A w*s ob-
tained for seah subjeot** This allowed the experimenter
to date mine if the aubject «®t the estebXiahed normaX
hearing a r l t s r i o n of s binaural S8f of 10 deoibels or l e s s
•ad s l so determined the level of auditory fned*lJ#ek during
experimentation.
She subjeots were aeatei in s oheir ; « headrest on the
ehsi r was adjusted so that the heed would rests In In s f ixed
posit ion throughout the test*
A aniform distance of spproxinstely fourteen inches
wss Maintained between the mouth of the subject sad the two
microphones used la the experiment* One microphone was
used to reoord the subjec ts ' •ooal lsa t lona, the other wss
used to estsbXish e synchronous auditory fsed*»bsok oonrti-
t lon through the aadiomster*
% I A « i P« 27*
*Hay#a A* *ewby. Audiol Clew York, 1983}, p . Sl'ST
m
V •Woll oop»voting omwd ( eh»*b«r *od ootttvel \ booth
r -
- < (i) Cfeamioi 8
- - - « - -Q--Ohsnnel %.
million Audloaoto* mtov Recorder
Fig* 1—Sahwwtio dlsgrum of th» •qaipwsat «®play«d la production tad recording of opoooh »*raple».
it
fturtng tho oxporlaaat both ohannoXa of tbi audi ono tor
ww# in GImmroX two of W m aodl<*»otor m » »d*
Justod to roturn tho total food»baok algnaX to tho aubjoet
*nd «•» It* l tod onXy by tho inhoront distortion and fro-
qponoy roaponso of tho Instrunante invoXvod* OhsnnoX out
of tho sndlMotor win aot to roturn tho flltorod food-baofc
slgnaX to tho subjoot* Introduction of tho flXtorod ®lgm%
wm attalaad by manually attonoo ting out ohonosX too of tbo
midfowttor Xoovlag oaty tbo flltorod coaciitlOR i. s poroolvad
throng ohsaasl «oo» andor tho flltorod condition Item
froqponoios sbovo 1080 ops ««r# flXtorod fawn the food-booJc
slgnaX* Tho foocu»baok lovol of tho aubjoot'a vole* vas ad»
Juatod by tho exporlmoator via « va »otor la ordor to In-
mm that th® aubjoot would monitor tiki f«od~bsek of tho
auditory oigosX bo rooolvod through tbo hoodphonos* A
food«»baak lovoX of 70 db mi tbo individuoXs ttf ««« main-
tains* throughout tbo oxporlnent* Tbi* lovoX «»» of auffl*
oiont intensity to soak wngr bono or tlasuo ooadaotod «1 goals.
Eaoh subjoot »ss pro son tod • list of ton short word#
and *sk»d TO produoo LIB© vo*oX sound* eontslnod I N FTS©SE
vords m sua to I nod vooslixfttlon* Hiao of tbo vords usad
bogan with ono of tbo toat vooola. Tbo voooX /u/ vaa
shown In tho s*dlsl position slnoo no oos»on word oouXd bo
found vhioh bogan with thla vowoX# Sho words oisployod to
oXlolt production of tho oxparlaontaX vovols woroi oat. ltfr
a m a&£» &s» »2ii. iaafe. a&> &£&» •<« mawf « »
20
oxptrlawatol Tow*In than produced vimi / 1 /# /I /# /6 /#
/£/, /ae/# /u/# /u/, /o/» /o/» im /a/*
Ewch «tfbj«©% »•» lnstruotwd to pbonwt* thw t»»t vowwlt
in tuaUlnwd vooallMfclon upon niga»l, fro® ttm •xperiawnter
who was Xooatwd la thw ooatroX Motion of tteo t«»t wilt##
Subjwot* wwrw ia®trnot#d to fttteapt to mint* la wnoh vowel
*t ® oon»Unt l*v»l of latwnwlty wad to dlwrwgavd ©ay
change • ti*y Bight h#»r la thwlr voio#» throat th* h»«d*
phono# daring phon»tlo&« Mmh wubjoot *•• allowwa Us* for
practicing th* tott toww!» in ordor to acquaint hlawolf
with th* "naar normal" fw«d«b»*k eoadltlona. Thu «lm
g»v th* «xp*rl«*&t*r tla* to adjaat th* gain* vli th* Vtf
utters of th* f«wd*ba6k eondltloa* sad tap* r»oord*r«
ISooh tabjoot w«» s*fc*d to phoa*t* th* t*»t vowala un~
dor th* two following *xp*rla»nt*l ooaditloawt
1* *h* *ttbj**t w*» »ak*d to ph*n*t« esoh of th* t**t
vowala and«r a •ynohreiioia* £**d»b*ofc condition* the «**&»
baok ww9 adjuatad via • ¥11 net*r to » Iwwwl of 70 db rot n
th* Individ***!1* SSf# fteit proo*dur* »*• d*«lgn*d to find
oat If th* *abj*ot ooald, under n**r noraal «onltaring @on»
dltlons, hold at • oonatant l*v*l of intanalty for fit*
aaoonda oaata of th* fcaat vowels. B*«h *ubJ*ot'* vooalls**
tioa* and*r this oondltlon w*re raeord*d and atorad on
S. LN| "8cm of tU»»|gM Dilir,' jQiiriml sssusz a£ tistisa. **" <*•*. m » j , "
81
Ampox mil eooteto rooordlag t#pe sad mm Xator e«®»
perod with 111# tepee recorded under the experimental ooadfc*
tlon of f i l ter ing.
8# f m fiXterod condition ooneleted of Instructing
•eeh eubjoot to phoneto the ton toet wowoXe tn eaeteined
•oo»ll to Hon. Two eooonde of tor ho had begun to phoneto,
hie perception of oooh of tho toot vowele WHO altered fey
f i l tering oat those frequencies ebovo XQ80 ope froa tho
foed-beofc eigne1, thne dleeXXowing tho oabjoat to reXy on
hie beginning foed-beelc elgael ee e reference la his a t -
tempt to aelnteln • cone tent XeveX of Intensity* Uhder
tht i oxperlaentsl condition, f i l ter ing of tho subject's
voieo woe not introduced until two eooonde ef tor bo hod be*
®o» phonetlon on oooh of tho TOWOX sounds end tho rooeptloa
of hie nstureX phonetlon wee eetebXlehed*
Under tho toet condltlone doeorlbod ebowe i t woe ex*
pie tod thet tho subject eoold respond in ono of two weyst
II) the subject ©oaXd tolerate tho perceived changes In
hie vooeXisetion end not very hie eetusX vocel production*
or W mo eabjoot couXd, to sons degree, very hie voloe
la intensity in en effor t to coapensete for the changes ho
perceived.
I t wee feXt that If thoro were greater intensity d i f -
ferences .In tho responses oi tho untrained gre«p then In
tho roeponeoe of tho treined group ander toet condition i f
then thooo fluting# would tend to eupport the hypothesis
thet the ontr*ined mtj wore on mMtmf eense tlons to
mints Irving end controlling voosl production then do
trained voloes* Thus if the truliied group demons tret* •
X®s#tr degree of intensity ©bunges under the eonditio.n of
filtering then da untrained group, in wey be inferred
thst til® trained group demonstrated « greeter Mptelty /or
utilising sensory w&nitorlng other then euditory* a fur-
ther logioel inference would be feet the tr»is®d subjects
m&e better uee of teotlle-klneathetic monitoring of their
vocsl intensity then did the uatrelne& eubjeets*
The inetraaente 1 enelysie of the dets wes •oocwpliahed
by ooupllng the Aapex tepe recorder end the sound level
meter* Intensity ohsnges, eseoeisted with the slterstlon
of the e pee tor'ft voiee, under the experiaent&l conditions
of filtering end son*filtering were oowputed In deoibele
by neeearing the differeooe between the initial Intensity
reeding, the lntenelty level es recorded on the first two
seconds of eeoh segment of tepe, end the finel Intensity
reeding, the intensity level of the reneining portion of
thet tepe e*0nent« The intensity levels obtslned from, the
reoorded tepe segments ere shown in the Appendix* These
differenoes were ooapered end enelysed stetlstleelly uti-
lising the following fomuls t6
•o. Hilton Smith. £ StopllfUd Oulda Bt»tl«tlc« J&g Psychology asa m w M OTI7, "
85
M 0 =
(in1 =
T D N
(*4
^ 0 = ^
(So d M p ^
V N M
N D _
d
fb® dirf#r®os@s b«t*«n tho ne«a* «>bt»lii»4 on tiwii
•<>••1 « O » J I & fop tt» t«Bla«d G P O T I P wore O O M P E R E D end A N T *
ly t td « t« t l s t i ce l ly with tho atwast obtat la«d for tbo an-
tra lot* group# In computing th* •ijptlfictmc© of tn®«#
tot*, t t» following forrauli w«s« u«edi7
M , - M 2
i* $ Th» ro«ult» are rtpopttd in Chapter i n .
7Uoni7 1 . t t e m t t , S ta t i s t i c* (Sow Tork, 1968), pp. 182*124* '
CHAPTER I I I
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 0? THE DfcTA
The purpose of the p r e s e n t s tudy was t o compare two
groups of subjeets I n t ini of their t a e t i l e - k l n e s t h e t i c
m o n i t o r i n g of voca l I n t e n s i t y , On® group was t r a ined , l a
v o c a l p?o<taction and t h e o t h e r was comprised of u n t r a i n e d
s u b j e c t s . The s p e c i f i c p rocedu re s used t o a s s e s s t a c t l l e -
k i n e s t h e t i c monitoring were presented In Chapter I I . The
r e s u l t s and a n a l y s e s of the d s t a *111 be p r e s e n t e d i n this
c h a p t e r .
The dsts obtslned f rom the first experimentsi condi-
tion were d e s i r e d t o find out i f the s u b j e c t c o u l d , under
n e a r l y normal a u d i t o r y f e e d - b a c k c o n d i t i o n s , s u s t s l n f o r a
p e r i o d of five seconds a c o n s t a n t l e v e l of intensity on
each of t h e t e s t vowels . I t will be remembered that t he
f i r s t e x p e r i m e n t a l condition d i d no t i n v o l v e the introduc-
tion of f i l t e r i n g * The r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d f rom t h i s c o n d i -
t i o n a r e ^i©wn In Table 1 . As may be seen f rom Table I ,
b o t h groups made s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s i n i n t e n s i t y on a l l
vowels, even though they were a t t e m p t i n g t o m a i n t a i n a con-
s t a n t Intensity l e v e l # A p p l i c a t i o n of the Jb t e s t on each
vowel y i e l d e d a v a l u e which s u g g e s t s that t he d i f f e r e n c e s
a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant w e l l beyond the . 0 1 l e v e l of
conf idence# I t should be no ted t h a t a l l v a r i a t i o n s In the
24
m
TABUS 1
mm m&au zwiEmin m i^cxbsls of vocal mmmtwrn mm mm nm*>wimwm mmimm
""" 'WSV'^mmnSn
III teditel# Orrlfttlon
L •Si •£>68964 2.46 • 05
I 1.25 *403119 9.50 .01
e 1*15 • a o n o o 15.07 . 0 1
£ 1*46 .756637 5.74 .01
TB .70 .556776 3.77 . 0 1
\l *70 »»1689 #*33 • 01
V 1.35 •380156 18.65 •01
O • 98 •471699 «*<M •01
D 1.80 ,mmoo 7.06 •01
a. 1.0S •415931 7 • » .01
Jntrftinea
I 1.40 .455890 9,64 •01
I 1*78 .460977 11.34 •01
e •567891 7#<S8 •01
£ 1.35 .595717 6.82 .01
1*45 •471699 9*88 . 0 1
UL 1*60 *mmm 3*83 • Gi
u 1*00 .500000 16.00 .01
0 1.25 .850000 15.0© . 0 1
1.70 .640500 r « wB •01
0- 8*20 .453253 14,47 •01
26
do to f « both tho oxpori«ont*X nod oontrol groups mn&o* tho
ooa*fil tortd condition reprooonta doerotte# of wmmt laton-
•Itjri 7M othor vofdii • • tho aubjooto attoaptod to auatain
0 oonatant XoiroX of intonaity under tho aoo-fiXtorod ooaAi*
t ion, thoy doorooaod in intoaaity output* fill® l a t t o r
point 1« intoroating whoa oonp&rod with the roauXta in
ftbXo XI*
I t «»y bo soon la TabXo XX that tho traiaod aubjooto
did not rory aigaifioantXy la intoaaity wbaa tho varlebXo
of f i l t e r i n g m a iatroduood* Application of tho t tost did
not yiold aooroo boyoad tho •& XavoX of oonfidoooo* How*
aror* the t score r of th® antrainod group are a XX boyoot
tho «0X XovoX of ooafidonoo. I t ahouXd aXao bo notod that
thoco veriotiono roproaont an inoroaao in the intoaaity of
voooX out ?ut« In comparing tho roauXta of TabXo I with
thooo ahown in TabXo I I # i t wouXd appoar that both graapo
raiaod tho intonaity la vela of thoir voeaX output un&ar
eaaditioiia of fiXtoring*
Tobla XXI i t o computation of the variat ions in in too*
aity of tho trainod and untrained groape whioh oo>»pare«
oaoh eubjeot*a perform noo under tho fiXtorod condition end
the non-fiXtorod condition. In computing the so aooroa, tho
s u a Intonaity devietione of tho non«»flXtered eegnenta of
tape mm compared with tho fiXtorod eegnenta of tape* I t
may bo roodily obeerved th»t tho magnitude of vooaX inten*
oity ohangee during tho condition of fiXtering mm elgaifi*
oontXy greater then intensity change a undor tho noa-fil tered
m
7ABIJS 1%
f ® m&n IWBSBBlTt DXffffSB&KQBS IK tMQimm OF V001& mmmiom mm mu nmsmx> oomditxoh
in Ifeoibels "T lS ior 35210
Dtvistlon t acare
fviiatd « i .25 •51*348 1*46 •t
I •10 •574X60 .80 •6
e #1© •55 •6
£ •40 •708967 1*71 «8
ae 0 •881000 0 » a • 15 •502494 •Si •4 V .30 •009900 1.75 •2 o •OS •471699 •51 •i o •id •531600 1«81 • 8 a. •Of* »567S90 .26 •8
Untrein«<l %
c 2.26 •680000 9«98 •01
I 2.15 •§®Q0§0 11*75 *01
e t«ao *mmm 15*55 •01
£ 2.25 1*005982 5.71 •01 ae. s«55 .602434 14*05 •01 u- 2.60 •665300 11*75 • 01 V S«40 •910000 7.8S •01 o 2.06 »S§7S8® §•95 • 01
0 8*65 •610325 12# 55 • 01 Gu 2,56 •807775 §•75 •01
tmvlitten too ellghttobo
m
tmw ttt
„ HEAR tummrnt of vogal mowcnom mmn coudiviovb OP FILTERING A ®
aicgect 3 W W ! ? # 1
PllUr»4 ileffafTon if on-filtered
fu ijii f u m i|fi murt • •[ Trained
% I • 88 * • & & 8*96 .01
I • 10 -1*85 7*36 .01
e • «10 -i»i§ 6«98 *01
£ » *415 •*1*40 ©»08 .01
ae 0 - .TO ^*®§ #01
u »1«®0 • .70 10*95 *01
XJ *UW @•11 *01
o .50 • *i© 0*67 .01
D • .20 mUUO 4*03 •01
ft. .50 -1*0© 6*54 •01
Untrained %
I 8«86 -1*40 18.80 *'01
r 8*15 •1*78 19.68 *01 e a.SO •1*48 14*74 • 01
8 3.8$ -1.35 Q»tS •01
2.o5 •1*45 Sl*75 .01 u.
2.60 -1.60 i*ee .01 V
2*40 -1*60 18 .'44 .01 o
2.05 -1.25 12.23 .01 0 i* i i •1.70 14.41 *01 ct 2 #56 •2*20 $JS#§8 .01
m
oondltlon for both the trained mat untrained groups* How*
m r , the var ia t ion d«a©n»tr»t#4 by the «ntrtta®4 group wss
approximately s ixty-f ive peroent greater than thst shown by
the trained group* The neen intensi ty vs r l s t ion for the
treined group was l«d& dbj for ths untrained eubjeets* i t
wss 1*76 4b*
In order to eeseee the d i f f e ren t e f f e e t s of f i l t e r i n g
on the TM»1 productloa between tslm trained ami untret&ed
groups* the var iat ion in intensi ty between these group# un-
dor both t e s t oondltlon» wt»s analysed s t a t i s t i c a l l y . f i t *
ble If the aeen dis t r ibut ion of the in tensi ty
var ia t ions observed on eeeh tos t vcwel under both the f i l -
tered end noa*fil tered experimental conditions* i t my be
seen that the s»an variat ions of the t e s t vowels fo r the
t r s ln td group under the noo-f i l tered oondltloa ran#® twm
*66 db fo r the vowel / I / to 1*45 db fo r the vowel / £ / »
while the obtslned neea variat ions for the an trained group
ranged f ro* l*f® db for the vowel / o / to 8*20 db fo r the
vowel /CL/* Appliestlon of the £ t e s t yielded values whloh
suggest that the differences In intensity ver ls t lons fo r
the vowels / L / # /3B/# /U. / # end / & / to be s t a t l s t l o s l l y
s ign i f ies fit beyond the *01 level of confidence* These
findings would seem to Indieste that ths two groups did not
d i f f e r sig&lficontly ftpon esoh other In s non-f i l tered con~
dl t lon except in the ©are of the four vowels Mentioned*
However, the Jb valuee obtained under the f i l t e r e d oondltlone
7mm i f
mm Mm iwrnmirt mwMmm OF VOCAL mow&tioxa for m mine *m wtR&uw ®mwm
m
suogect K K w Truin»a Oroup
iievietion 1*T® *' Move
F i l t e red
i *86 8.88 7*04 .01
I •10 3.18 11*78 .01
E • .xo 2*50 10*88 *01
e » *48 8*88 6*35 •01
ae 0 B*88 18.70 *01
U. • IS s*eo 8.78 .01
u • *90 8.40 7.86 .01
0 .05 8.08 «*7a .01
0 • *80 S*§8 11.87 .01 a •OS 8*88 8.98 *01
tendi
I m *58 •1*40 5.10 *01
1 -1.25 -1.78 8.83 *08 e •1*16 *1.48 1,40 •10
£ •1*45 *1*38 •88 .80
% • .70 •1*48 3*08 *01
a • .70 •1*60 4*08 .01
V ••1*88 <•1.60 1*70 #so o • #06 • 1.85 i»$d .80 0 •1*«0 •1*70 1«88 *10 a. -1*08 <•8*80 8*87 *01
*1
•m »on then three tlsiee ea greet ee thoee obtained under
the not*»flltered condition**
The obtained waen varletlone under the f i l t e r e d o « »
dl t lon for the trained group rongad fro® *0& db for the
•owel / ( L / to «46 db fop the vowel / £ / » The mean Inten-
s i ty deviations fo r the untrained group ws»®id f ro* 8*16 db
for the vowel /I / to t»§0 db for %t» vowel /U/» Applloe-
tloa of the t tos t yielded values whleh ranged f roa 15*7006
for the vowel / a e / to e t vslue of d»7898 fo r the vowel / U ^
these J| «@or©a, »e was suggested e a r l i e r , ere on the aver*
age more than throe times aa great aa thoee obtained In the
nan-f i l tered poeltlon* Froa those findings, I t siay be in-
ferred that the trained group de«oastrsted a s ignif icant ly
greater eepealty for a t l U s i n g eeneory fsed^bsek other then
auditory* A further loglael Inferenoe would be that tha
treined aubjeota aade bet ter use of teetlle~fcineethetle
feed-beok of the i r vocal Intensity then did the untrained
eubjeeta* The l imitations of these findings wi l l be dls»
ouaeed l a t e r in Chapter IV.
Oorrelatee of Vooel Intensity
Host of the research ooneerned with voesl intensi ty
hee been* for the stoat par t , done by experlnentel phoneti-
d e ne* Their writings auggeat that there hea been oorisider-
ebly greater in te res t in the theoret ical espeeta of t h i s
feoet of ooanonleetlon then hee been dlspleyed by s l l n l ee l
38
Inveetlsetors* Report# concerned with the relationship
between voecl Intensity and vowel eouode mtke up the greet-*
•at portion of the reported atudlee* Bleoit* a*de e atudy
of vowel Intenelty In reading. Ffcirbanke, Houae, aad o
ftevene reported en experimental etody of vowel lntenel«
ttee In aonoeylleblo worde. Vowel late nel tie e were the
prlaery eonaiderstlon In the early etudy of secle end Bee*®
on the relative power of fundamental phonoa*s In asonoeylle-
blea end cooverafttlonel apeach, In thl* type of lnveetlga lo-
tion, the vowel® were not only eoneldered Individually, but
in groups ee well, /or osample, Fairbanks et ©I, showed that
vowele very from « relatively high intenelty value for the
open vowel* to e leeaer v»lue for closed vowele#* Hoops
ate ted that "tbare ere re letlonshl pa between the Intenelty
varlatlone end certain physiological eepeete «uoh as the
Hps, jew# end feoupi© position*"® other investigators suoh
%* W, Bis ok, "Bfeturel frequency, Curetlcm end Xaten-elty of Vowele In Heading,* Journal of Speeeh end Keerlwt Plsordsrs* XIV (June, 1949), 216-221,
%• Felrbenks, A. S» 8ouse, end 1# L* Stevens* *Aa Ixperlwentel Study of Voo&l Intensities.* Journal of Aoous* Mssi — » • » or isoisa. **« !*»». i t » W T W - ® ® r ^
% . P. Beele »a& C. J. Beek, *fhe Power of Fundeoentel S f f T ISSLtoSl l22$®s® I m m k * f u«iy»
*Pairt>»aka, Houae end Stevens, "An Experimental Study of Vooel Xnteneltlee*"
M,tmt isprlngfleld 111., lwOJ| Pi »6»
33
& 7
63 Rees, sad Sherman sad Mnks , have considered vowels In
terms of such o l s s s l f i o a t l o n s a s f r o n t versus bacic vow#!®,
tens# versus l a x , high ve r sus low, e t ce tera* a l though not
n e c e s s a r i l y In r e spec t to t h e i r Intensi ty character is t ics*
There 1# » pauci ty of bas ic in format ion l a voice s c i -
ence l i t era ture on vowel c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s whloh seemingly
oould be u t i l i z e d by the speech c l i n i c i a n * I t l a apparent
t h a t more Information mast b© compiled before s systemstic
a p p l i c a t i o n of p resent knowledge can be made# Fairbanks
e t s i . f e e l t h a t a g r ea t dea l of Information which r e l a t e s
vowel i n t e n s i t i e s to the phys io log ica l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of
vowel® I s needed "before conclusions way be drawn**®
I t would appear to be worthwhile to cons ider c e r t a i n
observations whloh might be made from the da ta r epor t ed In
the p resen t Inves t iga t ion* I t I s hoped t h a t these observa-
t i o n s w i l l contribute to the understanding of the r e l a t i o n
between vocal i n t e n s i t y and the phys io log ica l c h a r a c t e r i s -
t i c s of vowels#
% . Rees, "Sense Var iab les Af fec t ing Perceived Harsh-ness*® Journal of Speech and Hearing Research* I (June, 1958), T S & m r -
7D« Sherman and H. Links, "The Influence of Certain Vowel Types on the Degree of Harsh Voice Quality," Journal of Speech and Bearing Disorders, XVII (November, 191527,
^Fai rbanks , House end Stevens, "An Experimental Study of "Vocal I n t e n s i t i e s , " p. 4St*
34
I n t e n s i t y XfevUfcloa* •coordlng t o Vowel C l 8 8 e i f i c » t l o n
I rtnfc order t abu l a t i on of Meh t o s t vo»«l w»a aedt
from th« r#»ulfc» obta load f r o a e t ch group undt r the non*
f i l t e r e d c o n d i t i o n . Thlu ds te l a p r t r«nt#d l a V#
tABtB V
mm omm tiwauairn m mm mmm mmim nmm i W m U T f DXPFE3XS08S VUDZR THE IMB.PIXmgX)
008PX7108 FOR SUIIISD AH£> ! ? « f t M l » OROCTPS
Untrained Croup 9M1CMN& djpmip
Hank brdar f r o » l « « i t to a r e a t e a t
MS# l a db Rank dWta*' fro® La* a t t o Q*«at»afc
" ho-iwraa
"TSSHsHon i® dte
1 O t mm £**8 1 I •ftft
2 £ i # » 2 30 .70
3 0 1.40 3 a .70
4 e 1.46 4 o #«S
ft ae 1 .48 5 CL i . o e
6 a 1 Aft l*wU 6 e i a f t
7 V 1«60 7 0 1 .20
a D 1.70 a I 1.26
t I 1.76 9 V l . M
10 a a . s o 10 t 1.45
At tt| b# Meo f o « r t a l a phootiaea d t v l s t t d In In t aaa l t j r
soaewhat 1«»» than o t h e r s . I t i s apparaa t tha t th« M # i
M
f r o n t vowel / 1 / w#« tb* phones* f o r the t r a i n e d
group t o as i n t a i n * t © cons tan t l a w l of I n t e n s i t y toll*
tli* add f r o n t vowel / £ / vee th* sonet uns table* f t » un-
t r a i n e d group appeared t o lit ab l e to w l a t a l n the mid beak
/ o / vowel e t • more eonfttent l e v e l of l a t e n s l t y end showed
s g r t s U r v a r i a t i o n l a t h e i r e t t ewp t s t o s u s t e i a * tontfcetit
I n t e n s i t y l e v e l m the low bsok vowel / & / * I t i t l a t e r -
e s t l ag t o note t h a t the re e re only two vowels, the / U / end
/ £ / produoed by the t r a i n e d group vhleh va r i ed so re In ln~
t e n s i t y then the four lowest I n t e n s i t y v a r i a t i o n s e x h i b i t e d
by the un t r a ined group* *?he only p a t t e r n of I n t e n s i t y
v a r i a t i o n s wi th r eepee t t o phones® type see a s to be eaumg
th ree phoneme f the bsek vowels /"U"/ end / 0 / nod the f r o n t
vowel / 1 / • 411 of theee vowels rank among the h ighes t In
I n t e n s i t y v a r i a t i o n s of voos l output f o r both groups* I t
I s s l s o I n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t the / & / , the moet open
low bee* vowel, eppeers to be the most u n s t a b l e vowel enoag
the u n t r s l n e d group while t h l a vowel eeene to be auoh
e e e l e r f o r t he t r a i n e d group t o eue te ln e t e s teady In t e n -
• l t y l eve l* A f u r t h e r observa t ion l e t h a t , on the be t i e of
thee* d a t a , the re appeara to be no r e l a t i o n s h i p between the
Sttount of I n t e n s i t y v a r i a t i o n observed and c l a s s i f i e s t l o n
of vowels s s op*n o r olos*d f f r o n t or bsek , o r h igh , a i d ,
and low*
Fu r the r oonper lsoas betw*ea each phoasu* and I t s I n t en t
s l t y d e v i a t i o n f a i l e d to r e v e a l any r e l a t i o n between vowel
I n t e n s i t y end vowel e l e a a l f l e a t l o n *
m
f a © fc 1 l a - K l n a a t h a t i c A b i l i t y A « c o r d l a g t o
V o w s l c i * 9 $ t f l o * t t o m
In o r d e r to d i s c o v e r if t h e t a o t i l e ~ k i » 0 8 t h » t l e a b t l i -
t y a x h l b t t e d b y t h a t r a i n a d a u b j e o f c a » a a « f i t n o t i o n o f
v o w e l e l s a a l f l o a t I o n , a reaSc o r d « r t a b u l a t i o n w » a wm&a
w h i c h o a g p s r a s t h a l a t a n e l t y v a r i a t i o n * o f t h e t r e l o a d
g r o u p u n d s ? f i l t e r e d a n d n o a - f i l t e r e d o o n d l t t l o a s * T h i s
t a b u l a t i o n l a s h o w n I n T a b l a V I •
S A B I i . V I
m a s OHMS m w u f i o s OF m i w o n * &mim w & i i m m m m d i f f e r e n c e s f o r mm t r a i n e d <wo<jp
H IB l I t COHDITIOSS OF FXLTKBIUO All© TWH-PILTBftXKO
F i i t s r a d H o n ^ f l X t t M d
F * o « Laaa t t o O r e a t s s t
D e v i a t i o n i n d b
H a n k O r « a r F r e w L a a a t t o O r s a t a s t
Pho* mam.
D a v r a f T o n I n d b
1 * 0 1 • i •6ft
9 OU •08 f ae • 7 0
a o . 0 5 * u. •TO
4 i •10 4 o • 9 *
& e . 1 0 5 a X . O i
6 a . 1 5 § e 1*16
7 3 • t o ? 0 u « o
a « i • 10 § i i . « 6
9 u • s o 9 u l«M
10 £ . 4 5 10 e um
m
A® ?£;* V»t mt-a In this table, tint vowel / i / which
ranked highest la the nan*fliteral condition dropped to s
making of sight under the filtered condition* This find*
tog Right be sxplslnsd on the be sis of the fuet thet this
wss the first vowel or* which the subjects experienced the
verisble of filtering* However, this observe ti on is highly
spsoulstlve* A similar drop la reaic wee observed for the
vowel /U/ whloh dropped from e rsnJc of three la the non-*
filtered condition to * rente of six In the filtered eoadl*
tlon* Sines both of theee vowels ere olessifisd ss hlgjb
tense vowels, It seems to suggest that the high vowels
night be lees subject to teotile-fcinesthetic oontrol* This
again Is highly speculetlvc, but msy be s fruitful sree for
furrier resssreh concerned with the phyelologloel ohsrsc-
terlstlos of vowel production* %e vowels ft /, /V/$
/o/t end /D/ resolved ldsntloel rankings under the two
conditions* The vowel /36/, whloh reoslved rankings of
one end twc would sppesr to be the ooet stsble of the
vowels while the /£/ phoneme sppesrs to be the nost un-
stable*
Further eanporlsons between the test vowels, their
clssslflostlon, end the dsgree of teo tile-klnesthetle con»
trol produced negstlve results) suoh variables ## tense-
lex, open-olosed, high-low, et ceters, were not found to
be relsted to the degree of tsctlle-fclnesthetlc control•
GHhfTm If
SUMMARY A ® OOXCttf&XOMI
fi»» pttrpooo of ttiu pro win t otady w«t« to
Ylduolo with trolnod volooo and porooao with untrolnod
VOIMI in THO uttttmtlm of to O tlLO-fclnoO thotic «lan
whllo ottowptlng to ooatrol vocal i atonal try. la ordor to
etolgo thla ocmparlaoa, two group* of oabjooto wore oolootod*
Sech group woo oomprlood of fi*o nolo* ond fl*o ferules
oaeta. ftao antral nod group nado op of fl*o a* loo ond
flvo foaaXoa who hod Xlttlo or no bookground In voleo
trolnlng or oxporlonoo in tinging* Tho trolnod group wao
no do up of flvo nolo* ond flvo foasXoo of • tailor o§@ «booo
bookgroand ohoood Individual vooal Inatrootloa and profoo*
olonal oxporlonoo* Xiao oubjooto ranged In aga fro® nlno-
toon to twoaty-four yoara with » aoan agi of 21*1 yoara*
A ayaohroaoua aapltflad auditory food-book oondltloa
woo ootobllobod through aa oudloootor to hoodphoaoa worn by
ttoo aubjoot. Btlon tho mttml toot varlablo of filtering
m o Introdaood* tho oubjooto woro oafcod to prodaoo ton
vowola In ouotolnod vooaXlsatlon andov tho oynohronoao
•apllflod oondltloa, Yhoy woro laatraotod to tsolntaln o
constant XovoX of Intonolty on oooh production. Tho to vo-
oolliotlono wore rooordod ond aorvod «« « nodal with whloh
m
the eeooad production mm oonpared* flm eonditione for Mi
seeond production M M the same m for %hm i%m% except
those frequaaoiaa above 1080 «pi were filtered from Hie
synchronous faed-ba©k signal* The following t«B vowels
were need In this studyi /i A /] A / 6 A /£ A /S?/»
/u/f /V/t /0/t /0/# and /a/,
It wss postulsted lli»ft If the twined group showed
less variation under the condition of filtering, then it
might be inferred that they denoaetrated e greater ospeeity
for utilisation of sensory monitoring otter then auditory.
A furthtr logieel Inference would be th*t the treined sab-
Jeote node better use of taetile-klneethetie feed-back then
did the untrained snbjsots*
Statletieel eoaputetions were ueed to determine the
degree of intensity variations between the first end aeeond
produotione for eeeh phonemic element* Application of the
I, teet to theee dete yielded veluee whieh euggeat that the
differences between the treined end untrained to be etsfcis-
tieelly significant beyond the *01 level of eontt.denee* Xt
wee inferred on this bssls thst the treined group aade sig-
nifies ntly more competent utilisstlon of tsetile»k:lnesthetle
feed-be ok in attempting to meintein vowel intensity at e
eonatant level then did the untrained group*
Certain obeervetiona wsre su»de in relation to phonemie
variability* fhe high front /1 / vowel waa shown to be the
eaeiest phoneme for the treined group to mslntain at a
40
eonstsat la teas l t j r l e ve l under aoo* f i l t e r e d oondl t looe
Wi l l i * t l » A id f r o n t / £ / VOWOl * • » the m®91 ttSStSble* ffe®
aost stable eod unstable vowels f o r the unt rs lned group
under the mm oondi t lons were the n i d beok vowel / o / end
the lour beok vowel / & / # reepeot lve ly . The bmk vowels
/ U / end / D / «ad the f r o n t vowel / I / showed greet ln ten*
s l t y vs r l s t l oas l a both groups* The most obvious slialleffe*
tgr l a the two groups l a t h i s eoaperlsoa l e the f * e t tha t
these three vowels showed approximately the m h togm* o f
l a t e n s i t y v s r l s t l o n * Further observations *s t o the olee*
s l f i e s t l o n s o f vowels end t h e i r degree of l a t f a s l t y v s r l s -
t l o a f a i l e d t o reveel srqr e lga t f l oea t trends i n the dst««
I n eoatpsrlng the degree o f t so t l l e *k l« !es th» t le eoa t ro l
ead vowel o t e s t i f i c a t i o n s , the fo l l ow ing obesrvst lons were
w d f i
1* The / L / end / u / vowsls appear to be leee subject
to t e e t l l e * k l n e s t h e t l o con t ro l f o r the t r e l aed group*
8* the /dS/ vowel eppeered t o be the most steble o f
the phdm»ms produced by the t re tned group uMe? both t e s t
condit ions#
£• The vowels / £ / # / U / , / 0 / » end / D / v s r l s d sp»
prex lns te ly the snb» de§re<i under the two exjperlnsntsl oon-
d i t l ons*
l a the ohepter m sas lys is o f the dst* ead e a r l i e r l a
t h i s suuwasry, I t hes been In fe r red the t the t ra ined eubjeets
made aore e f f e c t i v e use of t se t l l e«k lnes the t l e moni tor ing
41
than did tli® antra laid group# Soob a oonolualon I® aabjoet
to oartaln U«ltatloa«( it *•» obaarvod that ttm
train** »tibj##ta *ora mm st«bl» In tholr production of
•oaola whan auditory filtering waa not pmmnt• Thua, it
1« poaalbX* that ttoa flpaetar deviation •town by the un-
trolaad croup ttndar condition* of f 11 taring m jpj?t a
function of thalr ralatlva lnatablllty* Saoond, It auat ba
raaattbarad that flltaring did not oo«pl«t*ly da lata tha
auditory faad*b#@lc» It night Im argaad that tha tatload
group w®« battar «blt to atlUii raaldual auditory faad-
b»ak than tha untrained group*
Furthar limitation* *r* plaoad on tha findings of thla
atudy when th» eapaot of vocal training la oonaldarad*
£**n though It my fe« Mid that tha trained group la thia
atudy axhlbltad « groatar dagraa of ta«tll«»k:ln**th»tlo
oaatrol* it u m l b* a* Id that thla control is a d tract
raault of tha training ha or aba haa raoalvad, further
Investigation la Mtdid in ord«r to vbathar the
alngar 1» pradlapoaad to taotllo«»fciii*atbatle soaitorlng or
if thla typo of monitoring 1* duo to tha tmlnlng stitivtS*
It waa hoped that the Intenalty values obtained in
this atudy for each of the experla»ntel vowela wight be
eonpared with thoee reported by the prevlcue Investigations
i f
of Bleek,1 Fairbanks, House find Stevens,8 sod Seels,* How-
• W | In the jMSMtat study there «•• no apparent relation*
•kip between the lntenalty l »wl» obtained end those r#-»
por ted by previous Investlgptore* This Isek of ngreewit i t
*l# i t be explained on the basle of the fm% that s l l vowels
la I M i study «»m monitored by ths experlaenttr v l i the f l l
nwter on the tup* reeorder, This In ef fect equated eaeh
vowel to bo reaorded »t relatively the mm Intensity level*
f t » other resesrohera uti l ised llve-volee Methods l a ob-
taining sound pressure levels for the vowels*
Certain suggestions *ight be oonsldered for future
research.
f i r s t , e replication of the present etudy In whloh the
frequency end pitch ohareeterletlea of vowels are coopered
to differing degree* of taetlle-klneathetle abi l i t ies*
fMiootsdly, It wouM also be Interesting to ©oasptr® treisnd
speakers with trained singers ut i l i s ing the variable ueed
in this study*
Finally, It would be worthwhile to study the apeolflo
techniques of vooal training uti l ised by singing Instructors
* • B lsok, * K a t a r s i f requency, Durat ion end l u t e s *
%. Pelrbenks, a* S. House, and E« L. stevene, "An Bxperlisental Study of Vocal In tens i t i e s / Journal of the tea&SM i g e i f j i s£ %sm$sM* * * * * U P ? « # "t
%• p« Sao la »nd>c* J» Beosc, ft*«v of Aiad«ia»a«»i ?BK?h M i l gl&tea Sochaleal £ o s S S # f Uulqr, i w l I n
m
£m the purpoto of M a i m l l y «v»lusting Sis# ussfulasss of
thess t«ofa»lQus« • » s possibls adjunct to volo# fcberepy.
Furthsrworo an natptrttwitfeai study of the xvlatlv* contribu-
Woo® of audition wpm» tftotils~irtns «th» sis to tfc« s f fso*
ttv« t res tasnt of vole# disorders i s suggested % ths f ind-
Ins* *h» $res«nt invsstigstlon*
APP&mix of mm of subjects
8a*J«ot Sex srtiaing
n » *3
*4
T5
W
W
«8
f®
no
tix
« tf3
m m m m m m 010
f
F
f f
F
X
K
M «
1 f
F
F
F
F
X
1
M
IK
II
24.0
2 0 * 0
19.2
20,7
SB, s
21*3
23*1
11*4
19.0
23.6
19.4
20.3
21.1
21.6
22,1
20.1
21.0
22.0 19.3
4 yttr»
2 fmm 2
2 y»»r«
f /•«!»•
5 y«*r»
1 j—v 3 y®»rs
2 year*
1 y*»p
8 yiari
4 y«®r»
4 yoert
5 fmwn 5 ywys
8 y«ei*«
$ jmm 4 year*
4 ?••**
2 7«i?a
44
m
i
I * g g
Bfc j f
* 5 0 Mm t J O
i f
s f
H i
R o 0 4
i l l
s r lt
•h*-fw
!
1
g H
HI
i
i t • • • •
M fefc
o o s a w * 0
S S M
* # # • t #
3 8 8 8 S 3
o < 5
S S
» ©
s s
t o o
s i i s "
mm • •
§§ 4 K ) • •
o <* mm
0»O 0>«» OO
<0O i i
<6 < 0
& •O * *
( D e o
OTO i *
*>«» « d «A 1 1
« o i a o
s i s s i
« o
M
o o • »
MM « 0 ( @ • #
1 5 8
O»G i s
* » tO ft «
$ 3
o « © • »
o » # to
q o
is o o
s i
l O O -
l i s
o o • #
§>§> o o
s i t
0 ) 4 0
ft
mm
ii mm
t •
AS
§ 8
o o
ii 0 * 0
I S
t o o
i i
o o • • i t
© « a
M o o • «
i i
o o
s £ i §
o o • • *©«> DJ SJ 03 (0
a & t # * Jt
83 o o
HI! 10)0 4 4 «<0
OTT * • AS
»© o o
s i
o o
a 1 " ?
s s
« d a®
i n *
1 0 4®
11 o »
s s
* > » « « o o o o « o
s i g § m tfi i i
o « o
§ s
o o
ii mm. • •
8 «
o o
a &§ OTO « S c l
o o • #
M
OO i i
o *
8 8
o » # *
* S
o o
SI OTF>
• « 8 8 II
* *
s «
o «
II o o
t *
S 3
r 4
* . » . a , _ « . . o . • . • •HI « 3 H | ^ r t H < ^ H I < 3 H i S H ^ r < * § H » 5 H
4* • •*# £ 4* m ** m 4» m ** m <& m ** ® ** m
S i s i 3 I S i H s a l S i i t 3 I H i
j - J n c y u j $ 3 £ > O O
m
#»i
\m
m rf
m 6
* I?
i M 3 I *4 I g
a
«ps
i
• # • « # «
§4 m M
m* v4
0 0
68 ^0 88
©O ft
O t O • *
13 00 ft © * » * •
ss o * » ii A
o n ) # # 0 0 Jk. £ * H
81 SS o < o O *0 « o
* * • i • •
m u g © « c o o « om mo ^ 0 e m 0 0 0 0
in ii ii ii ii ii ii i i ii ii 0 0 * # r4«# « < 5
O O & $
t o o • •
6**-00 * i i i
0 1 0 g: m •»<? O M A &
tOiO # #
S 8 S f c S 3 a s .
O O » *
I S
0 « 9
3 * 8
a to
ii <?<? HI # < 8 $
0 0
ii 0 t ©
ii 0 0
ft
0 ® • »
s s
««» • • i g
mo ii
0 0 j •
4} «6f
0 0 # • M r t ««
o < j
S 3
t o o
ii <S°.
i m
i". 3 < ?
mm mt-t»e-
H ft H H
Sh S h j u a, rt H rt rt
3® 1m 1m S m § * • *• i ^ 1 * * 1 ^ s *»'« # s ** 1 « | « * | s i * < s 4 I $ 3 * 3 a | n f W f c M & < M ft* wist Hffcf M l ) w f e W W» HIP* W P*
1-4 Q) UJ
47
to
E
1?
m*
too * «
SI o o ss tn m
<00 • J © CD
oo
is oo
M mm ou>
10 to
is mo ii
tats* # • gs OA sa mo
ii #*f> * # H3l
oo • * nn ©<o mo • *
<#<# CO CD ion*
8S o o o o » o
ii la ii (OO S ®
»»o WO oo 00 mo to#* O <0
• t ' # t ft *
* « M » n# • .# # #
S3 33
its
i m 8
I
u>o o o o m o o o o o o <dO o o o o «t«f «* * » « • • I * f f * • * • # 1 * J* • S3 &S 3S S® 8S §3 8S
m H
if! Si
a
8
OO 10 to *>o oo «oo « q o o # o o o «oo
ss rfs & ££ ^ gg ft is ri? si oo «oo oo o«© too oo too o«o « o mo a a lis §8 £* a a a a u *>** oo w«© •«» oo <oo oo <ato q o qto
ii M si sis ii ii si ti si g§ ®m too oo too o© oo Oia Oil a is ii ii ii ii ii ii ii ii H mm oo oo o o oo <oo oo «« <oo o q
&8 M si ii 66 ss ii
I
48
HH
M
i §
oo oo «o»o m® too oic mo oo ana &m
SS SS S8 8S 8§S s g j f i a a g g
3 ° S 3 3 * V> ° ® °°' ® ° "2° is 8^ m ss bs ss nu ss ss gg
HI
!
o<« too mm o o o o o o o«i o o o o o«o ? f : 8 8 S 3 3 8 8S 8 8 8 3 i § SS
o»o «®o ta .0 oi.. . _ si as ii ii ii
*oo a o too o o # # * • « * « I
<oS 8co 8 * • J Jf * » # t • ffe §> © fift ® (* fc-fc- CD l> t*- If*
« o rfft If1* t-
o o M
o o * « as
<00 • * ?f?
@o • v r#3»
o o i d © h
too Is
OO 813
DC • *
| S o«o • « 88
11 g g
<00 • • *904 e»i>
o o * • S$s
«9tO * * «$** «©
OO 8®
°.°, 6 " •oo 4 4 e* sr-
«®o !?•* §* t-
890 i i
«>o 8
too t » (0 c** t» >
10 <0 if* l> »
«*o o o wo « o o o « o « o O© OK) OA 8 3 8 ? 2 ? & SK 8 $ g £ !§& 8?E? o « fflo o o c « o o o o o o o o o o « « SSS 8 ? SK fcg S? 8 8 ?§: g g g g
3 2 2» <lf 1E» ,w* 5*"* ft*"* <5 #-• 3H <r5r« »5 r<
II | | I | s | 51 II al 31 31 21 ws» wfc M&4 WCU W&, H $4 HS, Mtk» h (j; U> #
BXBUQOIUffflr
Bootis
Brown* Qtmrl®& f• SOChUOCtte,
rl«» 0* Thamm, publl»h#rf 1962*
5oismroi«i&!,ab,iaee* Htntr *•# l lMgatarr i#n York, QtvU r Compeny, 1963#
to;"o2lfelaiMi.lslaffiw*UUn0U' P i v« AIlwiSw8tj> P%IIi&XirHGrFf
IBSES&S Applloatlooi wornis*,: uraM vfc»
Judton* {grata Splo#p and Aadr«v TboN»« %««v*r* Vole* |H|a25# »•« ywk# AppX«^oa-C»nttt*y*Croft«, iac , ,
Lvrta, HatbtaloX "Applied *a»tomr »M ?hy*iologr of tot Vol©# »ad Sp»«oh Mttbftv"~ " " * "•
IMS, '
•*3? H; SjtV&tall „ Thorn®, publlfthor, 1908,
H*wby# ffry©* A«» Audlologyi ^ Tort:# A ppl« ton~C«ntury-Cro
Xtv
?#rlcla», w. "**» CJ*XX«n«» of Fanetlon*! DUewtors of !>**•* w* Voloo,* Twwiil*
flMlttu P
•# odltod by L»* &. *roft®# Za«*» i t s ? .
end
49
tSIJN*
m
f»a Rlpor, Charlo* and J oho Y« Irwltt, Vo Stem, SftgLoweat Cliffs, «©» Jersey, t*Si 1 Jkl30*f A WHS#
Artloloa
&2*ok» «foha fc«t **fl» fcffoet of Delajrod 844»«$oa» upon Voool Rot* fii
, „ . "atturel ftpequency, Burction aod lofcontltjr of VW.10 in SMdlng,"igaBBl g£gsaa& S2& 81l«MlP«» XIV (Juno, 1949}, Bl6*fesi«
Brodnlti, Trlodrlah 8*t "Voloo Problem* of th* Aotar end &1&0»P, -• * «. — — -• {Deamher ? l n e 6 P i . 5 2 | | | e | 4K5PBMb S3& m»rtm m s a s S s m - * »
biMiuao, Jon sod Bbuln&th K»«teln, "in Uw#»tlgetioa Into th» Ability of Volm Dofootlvc* to DliKH?liBtn»feo Among Differences la Plteb and Lcnidoes*,*
XXIII (Hovoabor
?olrb»nk», Qr»at, "Syttometlo Sooeerch la &sp«rU»»at<il Phoootlot, fm% 1# A Sboory of tb* Spoooh ttoohftnlm
rsa: 834 **»« . .. ... . _ .» A. 6. Houao *ad 1* L. Strom, mm Sx-pwuwiTStudy of Vootl Xnteaeltl««„" Journal of
• • • m i m . 21 m j e m * *»x t ^ i r w c
"* Si& isn^ Hthn, S* F«# Dl«ma»lon of KM Noto~klo»e«tb*tle Mothod of
sn&ssrssi. £2ami 22 lm $ Bernord S,» "Artificial Jwgpfl of gncttfr
ISl Plaordorg, XVI (Xsvoh, iSxT# B8MBSI
Effeota of Slda-torws Jour-asX gQftlftfer of Awftylo*, XXII {M»y# I960),
*4 coeperlftoa of tto* SlaM»«b*tl« m®** • l b l l i t y of £pt«oh-d«feotiYo »«& Horraal-tpeeiclrig
B t i d S S S * {rnmm&MT,
Porta*nn, O#org»*» *Th» Physiology of ?hoaafelon,* Th® Jour-p l M iSMms&im m i 9 , m m > ***** ( * * « * , xl®fTf
Heea, x , , "Sown Variables *f f«ot lng ?*ve«iv»d i a a s l a t saaaafe texiai Bsssssk# 1 u«»»# xwa*
!•» "Socw Observations on t t » Hlttologjr and Function
S x m ( j S S t y . ^ s f l ^ i o T ^ ^ • ™ g > 3 ' ' w : 8 2 4 2 S 2 l »
Stein, c* £• «n4 c . J . look# "Tl» Powor of Pa»dfta»nt»l
I t e w i a i D.# orul R# Ltaiji# *Tb* influonco of C*rt» In VowoX • f jp»« oa th» B#gr## of Berth Voloo %*®Xitjr/ Journal § § J $ g } & ®M H f l f e i B i f S t e # *VII CSow*«r7 IS8 jb
Sfe#sl®?». ^ U a w . o r Volo»,» ^ow^gOof l a jftw>a>qu ccxi (April , m i l #
Stinohflo 14«H»wk, Sar*# naot(o~K;inae»tb§tio Training fop
Children with £pooch HanAioapc.* Journal of SoMoh Maor&tagfi* ¥Xf
Zmmml
Travia, La* K«# "Tha ?#a»gogl©iil S l f f i l f iwae# of tha Koto* JUnaeattaotto Mathod la dpaaeh fharapsr,* J p g y X § m a k B a a s t e i s • (?«pt*»ber» xww), a e r a t e
Young, E. H., Moto«£lnfieathfttic Kathod of r.paeoh Plt<wd»g»»' V (Saptem*
Zallouk, A«, WA Vlaual- taot l la Syete© of Phonotic*1 Syw-
a i l S " ' 8 2 3 0 2 2 8 4 3 8
m
Unpublished JtetorUla
Marshall, <3© org# ii»tthow», WA Study of Kinesthetic F«#d«* Iwok »nd Vocal Intensi ty," unpublished •as te r 1 • t b s s l * School of Medicine, Venderbilfc tfnlvereity, MtstovilX*# Tennessee, 1963*
Woodruff. M l l l a a , Resident Jnlverslty of Chiosgo, DiUitft, Hsrch M t 1964*
