Long-term Average Spectrum and Nasal Accelerometry in Sentences of Differing Nasality and Forward-Focused Vowel Productions Under Altered Auditory Feedback

  • Shao-Hsuan Lee
    Department of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, Mackay Medical College, New Taipei City, and Department of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology, National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Taipei, Taiwan
    Search for articles by this author
  • Guo-She Lee
    Address correspondence and reprint requests to Guo-She Lee No.155, Sec. 2, Li-Nong St., Bei-Tou Dist., Taipei City 112, Taiwan
    School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Yangming Campus, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, and Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Taipei City Hospital Renai Branch, Taipei, Taiwan
    Search for articles by this author


      Objectives and Background

      To investigate whether voice focus adjustments can alter the audio-vocal feedback and consequently modulate speech/voice motor control. Speaking with a forward-focused voice was expected to enhance audio-vocal feedback and thus decrease the variability of vocal fundamental frequency (F0).

      Materials and Method

      Twenty-two healthy, untrained adults (10 males and 12 females) were requested to sustain vowel /a/ with their natural focus and a forward focus and to naturally read the nasal, oral, and mixed oral-nasal sentences in normal noise-masked auditory conditions. Meanwhile, a miniature accelerometer was externally attached on the noise to detect the nasal vibrations during vocalization. Audio recordings were made and analyzed using the long-term average spectrum (LTAS) and power spectral analysis of F0.


      Compared with naturally-focused vowel production and oral sentences, forward-focused vowel productions and nasal sentences both showed significant increases in nasal accelerometric amplitude and the spectral power within the range of 200∼300 Hz, and significantly decreased the F0 variability below 3 Hz, which has been reported to be associated with enhanced auditory feedback in our previous research. The auditory masking not only significantly increased the low-frequency F0 variability, but also significantly decreased the ratio of the spectral power within 200∼300 Hz to the power within 300∼1000 Hz for the vowel and sentence productions. Gender differences were found in the correlations between the degree of nasal coupling and F0 stability as well as in the LTAS characteristics in response to noise.


      Variations in nasal-oral acoustic coupling not only change the formant features of speech signals, but involuntarily influence the auditory feedback control of vocal fold vibrations. Speakers tend to show improved F0 stability in response to a forward-focused voice adjustment.

      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 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


        • Larson CR
        • Burnett TA
        • Kiran S
        • et al.
        Effects of pitch-shift velocity on voice F0 responses.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2000; 107: 559-564
        • Mürbe D
        • Pabst F
        • Hofmann G
        • et al.
        Significance of auditory and kinesthetic feedback to singers' pitch control.
        J Voice. 2002; 16: 44-51
        • Siegel GM
        • Pick HL
        • Olsen MG
        • et al.
        Auditory feedback on the regulation of vocal intensity of preschool children.
        Dev Psychol. 1976; 12: 255
        • Stuart A
        • Kalinowski J
        • Rastatter MP
        • et al.
        Effect of delayed auditory feedback on normal speakers at two speech rates.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2002; 111: 2237-2241
        • Tourville JA
        • Cai S
        • Guenther F.
        Exploring auditory-motor interactions in normal and disordered speech.
        Proc Meet Acoust. 2013; 19: 60-180
        • Terband H
        • Van Brenk F
        • van Doornik-van der Zee A.
        Auditory feedback perturbation in children with developmental speech sound disorders.
        J Commun Disor. 2014; 51: 64-77
        • Mitsuya T
        • MacDonald EN
        • Munhall KG
        • et al.
        Formant compensation for auditory feedback with English vowels.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2015; 138: 413-424
        • Ringel RL
        • Steer MD.
        Some effects of tactile and auditory alterations on speech output.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1963; 6: 369-378
        • Lee G-S
        • Hsiao T-Y
        • Yang CC
        • et al.
        Effects of speech noise on vocal fundamental frequency using power spectral analysis.
        Ear Hear. 2007; 28: 343-350
        • Lee S-H
        • Hsiao T-Y
        • Lee G-S.
        Audio-vocal responses of vocal fundamental frequency and formant during sustained vowel vocalizations in different noises.
        Hear Res. 2015; 324: 1-6
        • Lee S-H
        • Yu J-F
        • Fang T-J
        • et al.
        Vocal fold nodules: a disorder of phonation organs or auditory feedback?.
        J Clin Otolaryngol. 2019; 44: 975-982
        • Titze IR.
        A model for neurologic sources of aperiodicity in vocal fold vibration.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1991; 34: 460-472
        • de Boer G
        • Bressmann T.
        Influence of voice focus on oral-nasal balance in speech.
        J Voice. 2016; 30: 705-710
        • Santoni C
        • de Boer G
        • Thaut M
        • et al.
        Influence of voice focus adjustments on oral-nasal balance in speech and song.
        Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2020; 72: 351-362
        • Chen FC
        • Ma EP-M
        • Yiu EM-L.
        Facial bone vibration in resonant voice production.
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 596-602
        • Lee S-H
        • Torng P-C
        • Lee G-S.
        Contributions of forward-focused voice to audio-vocal feedback measured using nasal accelerometry and power spectral analysis of vocal fundamental frequency.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2022; : 1-16
        • Dang J
        • Honda K
        • Suzuki H.
        Morphological and acoustical analysis of the nasal and the paranasal cavities.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1994; 96: 2088-2100
        • Lindqvist-Gauffin J
        • Sundberg J.
        Acoustic properties of the nasal tract.
        Phonetica. 1976; 33: 161-168
        • Chen MY
        • Metson R.
        Effects of sinus surgery on speech.
        Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997; 123: 845-852
        • Lee GS
        • Yang CC
        • Wang CP
        • et al.
        Effect of nasal decongestion on voice spectrum of a nasal consonant-vowel.
        J Voice. 2005; 19: 71-77
        • Barrichelo VMO
        • Heuer RJ
        • Dean CM
        • et al.
        Comparison of singer's formant, speaker's ring, and LTA spectrum among classical singers and untrained normal speakers.
        J Voice. 2001; 15: 344-350
        • Löfqvist A
        • Mandersson B.
        Long-time average spectrum of speech and voice analysis.
        Folia Phoniatr Logop. 1987; 39: 221-229
        • Tanner K
        • Roy N
        • Ash A
        • et al.
        Spectral moments of the long-term average spectrum: sensitive indices of voice change after therapy?.
        J Voice. 2005; 19: 211-222
        • Gill BP
        • Lee J
        • Lã FMB
        • et al.
        Spectrum effects of a velopharyngeal opening in singing.
        J Voice. 2020; 34: 346-351
        • Bottalico P
        • Graetzer S
        • Hunter EJ.
        Effect of training and level of external auditory feedback on the singing voice: pitch inaccuracy.
        J Voice. 2017; 31: 122.e9-122.e16
        • Sundberg J
        • Nordström P-E.
        Raised and lowered larynx-the effect on vowel formant frequencies.
        STL-QPSR. 1976; 17: 35-39
        • Lee S-H
        • Fang T-J
        • Yu J-F
        • et al.
        Responses of middle-frequency modulations in vocal fundamental frequency to different vocal intensities and auditory feedback.
        J Voice. 2017; 31: 536-544
        • Lee G-S
        • Hsiao T-Y
        • Kuo TB.
        Relationship between fundamental frequency system and audio-vocal reflex: illustration by power spectral analysis of vocal fundamental frequency.
        J Taiwan Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004; 39: 145-152
        • de Boer G
        • de Castro Marino VC
        • Berti LC
        • et al.
        Influence of voice focus on oral-nasal balance in speakers of Brazilian Portuguese.
        Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2016; 68: 152-158
        • Santoni C
        • Thaut M
        • Bressmann T.
        Immediate effects of voice focus adjustments on hypernasal speakers’ nasalance scores.
        Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020; 135110107
        • Feng G
        • Castelli E.
        Some acoustic features of nasal and nasalized vowels: a target for vowel nasalization.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1996; 99: 3694-3706
        • Delattre P.
        Les Attributs Acoustiques De La Na-Salité Vocalique Et Consonantique.
        Stud Linguist. 1954; 8: 103-109
        • House AS
        • Stevens KN.
        Analog studies of the nasalization of vowels.
        J Speech Hear Disord. 1956; 21: 218-232
        • Titze IR.
        Acoustic interpretation of resonant voice.
        J Voice. 2001; 15: 519-528
        • Dang J
        • Honda K.
        Investigation of the acoustic characteristics of the velum for vowels.
        in: The 3rd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. 94. 1994: 1
        • Dang J
        • Wei J
        • Honda K
        • et al.
        A study on transvelar coupling for non-nasalized sounds.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2016; 139: 441-454
        • Lubker J.
        Transglottal airflow during stop consonant production.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1973; 53: 212-215
        • Subtelny JD
        • Kho GH
        • McCormack RM.
        Multidimensional analysis of bilabial stop and nasal consonants–cineradiographic and pressure-flow analysis.
        Cleft Pal J. 1969; 6: 263-289
        • Suzuki H
        • Nakai T
        • Dang J
        • et al.
        Speech production model involving subglottal structure and oral-nasal coupling through closed velum.
        in: The First International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Kobe, Japan1990
        • Moll KL
        • Daniloff RG.
        Investigation of the timing of velar movements during speech.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1971; 50: 678-684
        • Bressmann T
        • de Boer G
        • Marino VCdC
        • et al.
        Influence of voice focus on tongue movement in speech.
        Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics. 2017; 31: 212-221
        • Aura M
        • Geneid A
        • Bjørkøy K
        • et al.
        A Nasoendoscopic study of “head resonance” and “imposto” in classical singing.
        J Voice. 2022; 36: 83-90
        • Smith CG
        • Finnegan EM
        • Karnell MP.
        Resonant voice: spectral and nasendoscopic analysis.
        J Voice. 2005; 19: 607-622
        • Hanson HM.
        Glottal characteristics of female speakers: acoustic correlates.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1997; 101: 466-481
        • Mendoza E
        • Valencia N
        • Muñoz J
        • et al.
        Differences in voice quality between men and women: use of the long-term average spectrum (LTAS).
        J Voice. 1996; 10: 59-66
        • Zhang X
        • Chen Y
        • Wang J
        • et al.
        Acoustic analysis of nasalization in mandarin prenasal vowels produced by Wenzhou and Rugao speakers.
        in: APSIPA Annual Summit and Conference. 2020: 584-588