Summary
The term “singer” refers to a population of individuals who perform musical songs
or related artistic material using their voices. Research has indicated that, as a
population, singers’ voice parameters differ from the non-singer population. Given
the fact that diagnosed voice pathologies are more prevalent in the singer population,
normative speech data in singers are necessary for diagnosis and for outcome analysis.
Objectives
The purpose of this study was to compare objective voice parameters for the professional
opera singer population with KAYPENTAX CSL normative values.
Methodology
Medical records of students at an elite opera conservatory who came into the senior
author's (RTS) office for a baseline evaluation were reviewed retrospectively. All
subjects had no voice complaint and had not undergone voice surgery. Subjects with
vocal fold mass and scar were excluded. All subjects had undergone objective voice
measurements by one of three board certified speech-language pathologists using the
KAYPENTAX CSL (computerized Speech Lab) protocol. Mean, standard deviation, median
and range were compared with normative values provided by KAYPENTAX CSL.
Results
Twenty-seven elite opera conservatory students (11 females and 16 males, ages 21-29
years) were included in the study. There were significant differences between singers
and normative values of KAYPENTAX CSL. Among men, the jitter, relative average perturbation
and noise- to- harmonic ratio among singers were significantly lower than KAYPENTAX
CSL normative values. Among the females, the shimmer percent of singers was significantly
higher than KAYPENTAX CSL normative values.
Conclusion
Our findings indicate that singers may have different normative voice parameters.
However, further research is needed to confirm or refute these findings, and similar
studies are needed for singers in other genres.
Key Words
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 accessOne-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:
Subscribe to Journal of VoiceAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
REFERENCES
- Comparison of dysphonia severity index between younger and older carnatic classical singers and nonsingers.J Voice. 2015; 29: 65-70
- A comparison of trained and untrained vocalists on the dysphonia severity index.J Voice. 2010; 24: 661-666
- Acoustic measures of the voices of older singers and non-singers.J Voice. 2012; 26: 341-350
Schloneger MJ, Hunter EJ. Assessments of voice use and voice quality among College/University singing students ages 18-24 through ambulatory monitoring with a full accelerometer signal. J Voice.
- Perceptual and acoustic study of professionally trained versus untrained voices.J Voice. 2000; 14 (J.): 301-309
- Acoustic analysis of voice in singers: a systematic review.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2018; 61 (Online): 40-51
- The clinical voice laboratory.Professional Voice: The Science and Art of Clinical Care, 3-Volume Set. 2017; 405: 883
- Normative voice range profiles in vocally trained and untrained children aged between 7 and 10 years.J Voice. 2010; 24: 153-160
- Relationship between socio-demographic characteristics and vocal fold nodules, polyps and oedema.Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2018; 38: 424-430
- Dysphonia in performers: Toward a clinical definition of laryngology of the performing voice.J Voice. 2014; 28: 349-355
- Prevalence of laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms.Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012; 146: 562-566https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599811434049
- Occult laryngeal pathology in a community-based cohort.Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001; 124: 448-450https://doi.org/10.1067/mhn.2001.114256
- Prevalence of laryngeal irritation signs associated with reflux in asymptomatic volunteers: impact of endoscopic technique (Rigid vs. Flexible Laryngoscope).The Laryngoscope. 2009; 115: 2256-2261https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlg.0000184325.44968.b1
- Vocal fold paresis.Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000; 122: 537-541https://doi.org/10.1067/mhn.2000.102574
- Recommended protocols for instrumental assessment of voice: american speech- language-hearing association expert panel to develop a protocol for instrumental assessment of vocal function.Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018; 27: 887-905https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0009
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 26, 2021
Accepted:
February 5,
2021
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
