Summary
Purpose
Although relatively precise control over the extent and rate of fundamental frequency
(fo) modulation may be needed for optimal production of vibrato, the role of auditory
feedback in controlling vibrato is not well understood. Previous studies altered the
gain and timing of auditory feedback in singers producing vibrato and showed inconsistent
effects on the extent and rate of fo modulation, which may have been related to small sample sizes or limited analyses.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to further investigate whether the gain or
timing of auditory feedback impacts control of vibrato in a larger sample of speakers
and with advanced statistical analyses.
Method
Ten classically-trained singers produced sustained vowels with vibrato while their
auditory feedback was masked with pink noise or multi-talker babble to reduce the
gain of their auditory feedback and while their auditory feedback was delayed by about
200 or 300 milliseconds to alter the timing of their auditory feedback. Acoustical
analyses measured changes in the extent and rate of fo modulation in the masked and delayed trials relative to control trials. Bayesian
modeling was used to analyze the effects of noise-masked, babble-masked, and delayed
auditory feedback on the extent and rate of fo modulation.
Results
There was compelling evidence that noise masking increased the extent of fo modulation, and babble masking increased the variability in the rate of fo modulation (ie, jitter of fo modulation). Masked auditory feedback did not affect the average rate of fo modulation. Delayed auditory feedback did not affect the extent, rate, or jitter
of fo modulation.
Conclusions
The current study demonstrated that reducing the gain of the auditory feedback with
noise masking increased the extent of fo modulation but did not affect the average rate of fo modulation in classically-trained singers producing vibrato. Reducing the gain of
the auditory feedback with babble masking and altering the timing of auditory feedback
with imposed delays did not affect the average extent or rate of fo modulation. However, babble masking increased the jitter of fo modulation rate, which suggests that modulated auditory feedback may affect the periodicity
of fo modulation from one modulation cycle to the next. These findings clarify the role
of auditory feedback in controlling vibrato and may inform the current reflex-resonance
models of vibrato.
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
- Measurements of the vibrato rate of ten singers.J Acoust Soc Am. 1994; 96: 1979-1984
- Some acoustic characteristics of vocal vibrato.J Res Sing. 1980; 4: 18-25
- Acoustic and psychoacoustic aspects of vocal vibrato.in: Dejonckere PH Hirano M Sundberg J Vibrato. Singular Publishing Group, Inc., San Diego, CA1995: 35-62
- The vibrato.University of Iowa Studies in the Psychology of Music. 1. University Press, Iowa City, IA1932
- Vibrato rate and extent in college music majors: a multicenter study.J Voice. 2016; 30 (756. e731-756. e741)
- A reflex resonance model of vocal vibrato.J Acoust Soc Am. 2002; 111: 2272-2282
- A neural network model of speech acquisition and motor equivalent speech production.Biol Cybern. 1994; 72 (Published 1994/01/01): 43-53
- Neural modeling and imaging of the cortical interactions underlying syllable production.Brain Lang. 2006; 96: 280-301
- The relation of articulatory and vocal auditory–motor control in typical speakers.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020; 63: 3628-3642
- Voice F0 responses to manipulations in pitch feedback.J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 103: 3153-3161
- Perceptual calibration of F0 production: evidence from feedback perturbation.J Acoust Soc Am. 2000; 108: 1246-1251
- Neural substrates governing audiovocal integration for vocal pitch regulation in singing.Annal New York Acad Sci. 2005; 1060: 404-408https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1360.058
- Experience-dependent neural substrates involved in vocal pitch regulation during singing.NeuroImage. 2008; 40: 1871-1887https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.01.026
- Auditory-motor mapping for pitch control in singers and nonsingers.Exp Brain Res. 2008; 190: 279-287https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-008-1473-y
- The role of auditory feedback in sustaining vocal vibrato.J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 114: 1575-1581
- Delay-induced low-frequency modulation of the voice during sustained phonation.J Acoust Soc Am. 2018; 144: 282-291
- Vocal wow in an adapted reflex resonance model.J Acoust Soc Am. 2020; 147: 1822-1833
- Quantitative evaluation of vibrato in singers.Folia Phoniatr. 1981; 33: 1-14
- The effect of delayed auditory feedback on vocal vibrato.J Voice. 1988; 2: 195-199
- Singing without auditory feedback.J Res Sing. 1978; 1: 4-44
- Nature of the vibrato and the control loop in singing.Nature. 1959; 183: 167-168
- Attentional demands modulate sensorimotor learning induced by persistent exposure to changes in auditory feedback.J Neurophysiol. 2016; 115: 826-832
- Attentional demands influence vocal compensations to pitch errors heard in auditory feedback.PLoS One. 2014; 9e109968
- Comparative measures of vocal tremor and vocal vibrato.J Voice. 1987; 1: 162-167
- An evaluation of laryngeal muscle activation in patients with voice tremor.Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992; 107: 684-696
- Auditory-motor control of fundamental frequency in Vocal Vibrato.J Voice. 2021;
- R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [computer program].R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria2021 (Version 4.0.5)
- RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R [computer program].RStudio, Boston, MA2021 (PBC)
- Stan: a probabilistic programming language.J Statistical Softw. 2017; 76: 1-32
- Advanced Bayesian multilevel modeling with the R package brms.R J. 2018; 10: 395-411https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-017
- An introduction to Bayesian multilevel models using brms: a case study of gender effects on vowel variability in standard Indonesian.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019; 62: 1225-1242
- Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal.J Memory Lang. 2013; 68: 255-278
- Interactions between auditory and somatosensory feedback for voice F 0 control.Experiment Brain Res. 2008; 187: 613-621
- Speech rhythms and their neural foundations.Nat Rev Neurosci. 2020; 21: 322-334
- It's about time: minimizing hardware and software latencies in speech research with real-time auditory feedback.J Speech Lang Hearing Res. 2020; 63: 2522-2534
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 26, 2022
Accepted:
January 30,
2022
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofFootnotes
This research was funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Advanced Rehabilitation Research Training (Grant 90AR5015) (PI L.R. Cherney); the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Early Career Research (Award R21 DC017001) (PI R.A. Lester-Smith); and research funding provided by the Moody College of Communication at The University of Texas at Austin (R.A. Lester-Smith).
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
