Research Article| Volume 37, ISSUE 3, P374-381, May 2023

Download started.


Acoustically Induced Vocal Training for Individuals With Impaired Hearing

Published:February 22, 2021DOI:


      Articulation, phonation, and resonance disorders in the speech of hearing-impaired-speakers reduces intelligibility. The study focusses on (1) whether nonacoustic feedback may facilitate the adjustment of the vocal tract, leading to increased vocal tract resonance, and (2) whether training with the feedback would be helpful for the subsequent formation of vowels.

      Study design



      Seven profoundly hearing-impaired participants used acoustic sound waves in the frequency range of the first two vocal tract resonances applied in front of the open mouth at intensities above 1 Pa. They were asked to amplify the sound via adjusting the vocal tract. The sound waves corresponded to the first and second resonance frequencies of the vowels [u], [o], and [a]. The self-assessment of the participants and a software-based/auditory analysis was reported.


      The participants were able to enhance the acoustic signal by adjusting the vocal tract shape. The self-perception of the participants, the auditory voice analysis, and the acoustic analysis of vowels were consistent with each other. While the maximum sound pressure levels were constant, the mean sound pressure levels increased. Breathiness and hoarseness declined during the exercises. Resonance/harmonic-to-noise ratio increased, especially for the vowels [u], [o], [a]. Furthermore, the positively connoted feedback from the participants indicated easier sound production.


      Nonauditory feedback, based on acoustic waves, could be suitable for improving the formation of vowels. The findings are in accordance with a reduction of acoustic losses within the vocal tract.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Voice
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Baudonck N
        • D'Haeseleer E
        • Dhooge I
        • et al.
        Objective vocal quality in children using cochlear implants: a multiparameter approach.
        J Voice. 2011; 25: 683-691
        • Gautam A
        • Naples JG
        • Eliades SJ.
        Control of speech and voice in cochlear implant patients.
        Laryngoscope. 2019; 129: 2158-2163
        • Chen MY.
        Acoustic correlates of English and French nasalized vowels.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1997; 102: 2360-2370
        • Hsu HW
        • Fang TJ
        • Lee LA
        • et al.
        Multidimensional evaluation of vocal quality in children with cochlear implants: a cross-sectional, case-controlled study.
        Clin Otolaryngol. 2014; 39: 32-38
        • Campisi P
        • Low A
        • Papsin B
        • et al.
        Acoustic analysis of the voice in pediatric cochlear implant recipients: a longitudinal study.
        Laryngoscope. 2005; 115: 1046-1050
        • Ubrig MT
        • Tsuji RK
        • Weber R
        • et al.
        The influence of auditory feedback and vocal rehabilitation on prelingual hearing-impaired individuals post cochlear implant.
        J Voice. 2019; 33: 947.e941-947.e949
        • Hassan SM
        • Malki KH
        • Mesallam TA
        • et al.
        The effect of cochlear implantation and post-operative rehabilitation on acoustic voice analysis in postlingual hearing impaired adults.
        Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011; 268: 1437-1442
        • Coelho AC
        • Brasolotto AG
        • Bevilacqua MC.
        An initial study of voice characteristics of children using two different sound coding strategies in comparison to normal hearing children.
        Int J Audiol. 2015; 54: 417-423
        • Selleck MA
        • Sataloff RT.
        The impact of the auditory system on phonation: a review.
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 688-693
        • Sarwat A
        • Baraka M
        • Bassiouny S
        • et al.
        Kinesthetic versus auditory cues in speech monitoring of post-lingual cochlear implant patients.
        Int Congress Series. 2003; 1240 (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier): 417-421
        • Brown VA
        • Strand JF.
        About face: seeing the talker improves spoken word recognition but increases listening effort.
        J Cognition. 2019; 2: 44
        • Kitzing P
        • Maier A
        • Ahlander VL.
        Automatic speech recognition (ASR) and its use as a tool for assessment or therapy of voice, speech, and language disorders.
        Logopedics, Phoniatrics, Vocol. 2009; 34: 91-96
        • Destombes F.
        The development and application of the IBM speech viewer.
        in: Elsendoorn BAG Conix F Interactive Learning Technology for the Deaf. Springer Science, Business Media, Berlin, Germany1993: 187-196
        • Hirano M.
        Psycho-acoustic evaluation of voice: GRBAS scale for evaluating the hoarse voice.
        Clinical Examination of Voice. Springer Verlag, Wien, Austria1981: 1981
        • Dejonckere PH
        • Obbens C
        • de Moor GM
        • et al.
        Perceptual evaluation of dysphonia: reliability and relevance.
        Folia Phoniatr. 1993; 45: 76-83
        • Graf S
        • Schwiebacher J
        • Richter L
        • et al.
        Adjustment of vocal tract shape via biofeedback: influence on vowels.
        J Voice. 2020; 34: 335-345
        • Takemoto H
        • Mokhtari P
        • Kitamura T.
        Acoustic analysis of the vocal tract during vowel production by finite-difference time-domain method.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2010; 128: 3724-3738
        • Scott GD
        • Karns CM
        • Dow MW
        • et al.
        Enhanced peripheral visual processing in congenitally deaf humans is supported by multiple brain regions, including primary auditory cortex.
        Front Hum Neurosci. 2014; 8: 177
        • Codina CJ
        • Pascalis O
        • Baseler HA
        • et al.
        Peripheral visual reaction time is faster in deaf adults and british sign language interpreters than in hearing adults.
        Front Psychol. 2017; 8: 50
        • Hoyer P
        • Graf S.
        Adjustment of the vocal tract shape via biofeedback: a case study.
        J Voice. 2019; 33: 482-489