HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

J Voice. 2017 May ; 31(3): 392.e1–392.e12. doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.10.001.

Speech adjustments for room acoustics and their effects on

vocal effort
Pasquale Bottalico
Voice Biomechanics and Acoustics Laboratory, Department of Communicative Sciences and
Disorders, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America

Abstract
Author Manuscript

Objectives—The aims of the present study are: (1) to analyze the effects of the acoustical
environment and the voice style on time dose (Dt_p,) and fundamental frequency (mean fo and
standard deviation std_fo), while taking into account the effect of short term vocal fatigue; (2) to
predict the self-reported vocal effort from the voice acoustical parameters.

Methods—Ten male and ten female subjects were recorded while reading a text in normal and
loud styles, in three rooms - anechoic, semi-reverberant and reverberant –with and without acrylic
glass panels 0.5 m from the mouth, which increased external auditory feedback. Subjects
quantified how much effort was required to speak in each condition on a visual analogue scale
after each task.

Results—(Aim1) In the loud style, Dt_p, fo and std_fo increased. The Dt_p was higher in the
Author Manuscript

reverberant room compared to the other two rooms. Both genders tended to increase fo in less
reverberant environments, while a more monotonous speech was produced in rooms with greater
reverberation. All three voice parameters increased with short-term vocal fatigue. (Aim2) A model
of the vocal effort to acoustic vocal parameters is proposed. The SPL (Sound Pressure Level)
contributed to 66% of the variance explained by the model, followed by the fundamental
frequency (30%) and the modulation in amplitude (4%).

Conclusions—The results provide insight into how voice acoustical parameters can predict
vocal effort. In particular, it increased when SPL and fo increased and when the amplitude voice
modulation (std_ΔSPL) decreased.

Keywords
Voice acoustical parameters; Room acoustics; Vocal effort; Vocal fatigue; Speech adjustments
Author Manuscript

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. [email protected].

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our
customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of
the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered
which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Bottalico Page 2

INTRODUCTION
Author Manuscript

While speech acoustic parameters are strongly related to physiological factors such as vocal
tract size, vocal fold length and lung capacity, speakers can adjust their voice to achieve the
desired vocal output. This vocal output is affected by various factors such as the type of
environment1–2 and interlocutor.3

Fundamental frequency mean (fo) and standard deviation (std_fo) appear to be affected by
the room acoustics and in particular by the reverberation time (T30).4 This parameter is the
duration required for the space-averaged sound energy density in an enclosure to decrease by
60 dB after the source emission has stopped.4 The effect of the environment on speech
acoustics was investigated by Pelegrín-García et al.,1 considering the talker-listener distance.
Thirteen male talkers were recorded in four different environments: an anechoic chamber, a
lecture hall, a corridor and a reverberant room with reverberation times averaged between
Author Manuscript

500 Hz and 1000 Hz (T30, 0.5–1 kHz) of 0.04 s, 1.88 s, 2.34 s and 5.38 s, respectively. The
parameters analyzed by the authors included phonation time ratio, which is the ratio between
the phonation time (total duration of voiced frames) and the running speech time (total
duration of the recording without pauses longer than 200 ms) and fo mean and standard
deviation. The phonation time ratio changed significantly among rooms. In the anechoic
room and the reverberant room, it was higher of about 10 % compared to one in the lecture
hall and the corridor. The fo mean and standard deviation decreased with an increase in the
reverberation time.

Phonation time (Dt_p) appears to increase under more reverberant conditions, with a
consequent increase in vocal fatigue.2 The influence of different acoustic environments on
the duration of voicing and silence frames in continuous speech was investigated by Astolfi
et al.2 Part of their study involved the analysis of phonation time in percent (Dt_p) from free
Author Manuscript

speech of 5 minutes in duration, which was performed by twenty-two university students in

a reverberant room and a semi-anechoic room (T30, 0.5–2 kHz were 7.38 s and 0.11 s,
respectively) and by six professors in a reverberant room, a semi-reverberant room and an
anechoic room (T30, 0.5–2 kHz were 3.51 s, 1.73 s and 0.05 s, respectively). Although the
differences detected by the authors did not reach significance, they found a tendency for
speakers in both groups to increase Dt_p with the increase in reverberation.

Several studies have analysed the relationship between voice acoustical parameters and
vocal fatigue. Vocal fatigue can be related to laryngeal muscle fatigue and laryngeal tissue
fatigue. Laryngeal muscle fatigue, which can cause tension in the vocal folds, is caused by
depletion or accumulation of biochemical substances in the muscle fibers. Laryngeal tissue
fatigue takes place in non-muscular tissue layers (epithelium, superficial and intermediate
Author Manuscript

layers of the lamina propria) and is caused by changes in molecular structure that result from
mechanical loading and unloading.5 Fundamental frequency and fo standard deviation have
been found to increase over the course of a work day, as reported by Rantala et al.6 They
analysed recordings of 33 female teachers during the first and the last lesson on a normal
workday. Each lesson had a duration of 35–45 minutes, while the work day was 5 hours
long. They divided the teachers into two categories: subjects with many voice complaints
(MC) and subjects with few vocal complaints (FC). The results of the study indicated that

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 3

some voice features changed during the working day, even if these changes were not
Author Manuscript

monotonic. The most uniform changes were seen in f0, which increased toward the end of
the working day (9.7 Hz, p value < 0.001). The magnitude of the f0 increase was larger in
the FC subgroup (12.8 Hz, p-value < 0.001). The f0 standard deviation showed a similar
tendency.

The first aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of the acoustical environment on
time dose and fundamental frequency, while taking into account the effect of short-term
vocal fatigue. Based on the literature results, it has been hypothesized that fo means and
standard deviations will increase under less reverberant conditions and when the voice
becomes fatigued, while phonation time will increase under more reverberant conditions.

Based on the same experiment, Bottalico et al.7 reported the effects of room acoustics, voice
style (corresponding to normal and raised levels) and short-term vocal fatigue on Sound
Author Manuscript

Pressure Level centered per subject (ΔSPL) and self-reported vocal effort, control, comfort
and clarity. The second aim of the current study was to predict self-reported vocal effort
from objective measurements, combining the results of the voice parameters analyzed in this
study with the results from Bottalico et al.7 Based on the standard ISO 9921,8 vocal effort
can be quantified by means of voice SPL. However, it has been hypothesized that other vocal
parameters should also be considered to better predict self-reported vocal effort.

EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
The speech of 20 seated talkers was recorded in three different rooms in the presence of
artificial babble noise, with and without acrylic glass panels at 0.5 m from the subjects’
mouths. More details on and the rationale of the experimental method are given in Bottalico
et al.7 Speech signals were processed to calculate measures of phonation time (Dt_p) and
Author Manuscript

fundamental frequency (fo).

Subjects, instructions and equipment

Ethics approval for the experiment was granted by the Michigan State University Human
Research Protection Program (IRB 13-1149). Twenty students, comprised of ten males and
ten females, participated in the experiment. All subjects were aged between 18 and 30 years
(mean age 20.8 y), were non-smoking and had self-reported normal speech and hearing.

The subjects were instructed to read a text for approximately 30 s in duration in the presence
of artificial babble noise, with and without acrylic glass panels at 0.5 m from the subjects’
mouths. Two different speech styles were used: normal and loud. The instructions given for
the styles were as follows: Normal: “Speak in your normal voice”; Loud: “Imagine you are
Author Manuscript

in a classroom and you want to be heard by all of the children”.

The subjects were recorded in three different rooms: an anechoic room, a semi-reverberant
room and a reverberant room. In each room, the subjects were asked to read in four
conditions (for a total of 12 tasks): (i) with normal vocal effort and without the presence of
the reflective panels; (ii) with loud vocal effort and without the presence of the reflective
panels; (iii) with normal vocal effort and in the presence of the reflective panels and (iv)

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 4

with loud vocal effort and in the presence of the reflective panels. The time separating these
Author Manuscript

tasks was between 15 and 30 s. The experimental setup is shown in Figure 1. With the aim
of an equal distribution of vocal fatigue (throughout all of) the tasks across subjects and in
order to avoid any other confounding effects of order of administration, the order of
administration of the tasks was randomized. With the aim to quantify possible effect of vocal
fatigue, the chronological order of tasks administration, which was different for each subject,
was considered in the analysis.

Each subject answered several questions after each task. In particular, subjects were asked:
“How effortful was it to speak in this condition?” Subjects responded by making a vertical
tick on a continuous horizontal line of 100 mm in length (on a visual analogue scale or
VAS). The score was measured as the distance of the tick from the left end of the line. The
extremes of the scale were ‘not at all’ (left) and ‘extremely’ (right).
Author Manuscript

Speech was recorded using a head-mounted microphone placed 5–7 cm from the mouth
(Glottal Enterprises M80, Glottal Enterprises, Syracuse, NY, U.S.A). The microphone was
connected to a PC via an external sound board (Scarlett 2i4 Focusrite, High Wycombe, UK).
The signals were recorded with a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz.

Room acoustic parameters

The mid-frequency reverberation time, T30, was 0.04 s (s.d. 0.005) in the anechoic room,
0.78 s (s.d. 0.012) in the semi-reverberant room and 2.37 s (s.d. 0.167) in the reverberant
room. To manipulate the level of external auditory feedback in the position of the talker, two
reflective acrylic glass panels were placed 0.5 m from the subject. The panels were mounted
on stands, located ± 45° from the mouth-axis. Multi-talker children’s babble was emitted
using a directional loudspeaker placed 2 m in front of the subject. The power level of the
Author Manuscript

loudspeaker was set in order to obtain an A-weighed equivalent level of 62 dB in the talker
position (measured with and Head and Torso Simulator, HATS, averaging the levels from
both ears). This level represents the background noise present in a classroom during group
activities.9 More details on the room acoustics parameters are given in Bottalico et al.7

Processing of the voice recordings

The voice recordings were processed with MATLAB R2014b (Mathworks, U.S.) and Praat
5.4/5.4.17 (Netherlands). Time dose (Dt) and fo were analyzed. Following the indication of
Titze et al.,10 Dt quantifies the total time (in seconds) of vocal fold vibration:
Author Manuscript

(1)

where tp is the performance time and kv is the voicing unit step function (1 for voiced and 0
for unvoiced frames). The percentage of time Dose (Dt_p) was calculated as the percentage
of the total period of vocal fold vibration (voicing time) over the total monitoring time.

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 5

The fundamental frequency, fo, was extracted with a frame of 0.05 s using Praat. The
Author Manuscript

algorithm performed an acoustic periodicity detection on the basis of an accurate

autocorrelation method. This method is more accurate, noise-resistant and robust than other
methods based on the cepstrum or combs, or the original autocorrelation methods.11

The step function kv was determined by means of Praat using two different criteria: (1) a
lower bound of 75 Hz and an upper bound of 500 Hz for the fo, (2) and a voicing threshold
(equal to 0.45 relative to the global maximum amplitude) and silence threshold (equal to
0.03 relative to the global maximum amplitude). A frame was rated as unvoiced if it had an
intensity below the voicing threshold or a local peak below the silence threshold. For each
sequence of the fo values extracted from the voiced frames, the mean and the standard
deviation (std_fo) were calculated.

Statistical method
Author Manuscript

Statistical analysis was conducted using R version 3.1.2.12 Linear mixed models (LMEs) fit
by restricted maximum likelihood (REML) were built using lme413, lmerTest14 and
multcomp15 packages. Nested models were compared on the basis of the Akaike information
criterion16 and likelihood ratio tests. Random effect terms were chosen on the basis of
variance explained. Tukey’s post-hoc pair-wise comparisons17 with single-step correction
were performed to examine the differences between all levels of the fixed factors of interest.

The model output included estimates of fixed effects coefficients, standard error associated
with the estimate, degrees of freedom, df, the test statistic, t and the p value. The
Satterthwaite method18 was used to approximate degrees of freedom and calculate p values.

The relaimpo package19 was used to assess the relative importance of the predictor in the
Author Manuscript

linear models. Relative importance was performed using the metric lmg (R2 partitioned by
averaging over orders).19

RESULTS
First, the effect of room acoustics, voice style and chronological task order, or “experimental
presentation order,” on time dose and fundamental frequency will be examined. Next, the
extent to which the objective vocal parameters (SPL, time dose and fundamental frequency)
predict the self-reported vocal effort will be discussed. These parameters were chosen
because they are the main output of vocal dosimeter devices available in the market. The
relationship of SPL and self-reported vocal effort with speech style, room acoustics and
vocal fatigue, have been presented in Bottalico et al.7 The mean values for the variables
Effort (%), ΔSPL (dB), std_ΔSPL(dB), fo (Hz) and std_fo (Hz) for males and females and
Author Manuscript

Dt_p (%) are reported in Table I for the 12 conditions (2 styles, 3 rooms and 2 panels).

Phonation time in percentage

A linear mixed effect model was fitted with the response variable phonation time in
percentage (Dt_p) and the covariates (1) style, (2) room, (3) panel, (4) chronological order of
tasks (1–12) and a random effect term (subject). The reference levels were: Normal for the

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 6

style, Reverberant for the room and the condition without panels. The output of the model is
Author Manuscript

reported in Table II.

The estimate of standard deviation for random effect (subject) was 4.5 %, while the residual
standard deviation was 3.2 %. The fixed effect coefficient for the intercept was 67.18 %. The
estimate for Dt_p in the loud style was 3.54 % higher than that in the normal style. In the
anechoic room it was 2.34 % lower than that in the reverberant room, while in the semi-
reverberant room it was 2.09 % lower than that in the reverberant room. The estimate for
Dt_p in the presence of the panels was 0.1 % lower than that without panels; however, this
effect was not statistically significant (p=0.81). The slope of for Dt_p – chronological order
was 0.17 %. The full effect over 12 tasks on Dt_p was an increase of 1.85 %.

Tukey’s post-hoc multiple comparisons confirmed that subjects recorded longer phonation
times in the reverberant room, while the phonation times accumulated in the anechoic room
Author Manuscript

and the semi-reverberant room were similar (anechoic room – reverberant room: estimate =
−2.34 %, z = −4.55, p < 0.0001, semi-reverberant – reverberant room: estimate = −2.09 %, z
= −4.07, p = 0.0001; semi-reverberant – anechoic room: estimate = 0.25 %, z = 0.48, p =
0.88).

Figure 2 shows the mean and the standard error of Dt_p accumulated by the subjects in the
three rooms for the normal and loud styles. The values accumulated in anechoic and semi-
reverberant rooms were comparable, while the values accumulated in the reverberant room
were significantly higher, especially in the loud style. Figure 3 shows the mean values and
the standard errors of the Dt_p accumulated by the subjects over the 12 tasks. The solid line
shows the best linear fit and the band represents the 99% confidence intervals. The slop of
the line represents the effect of vocal fatigue on Dt_p.
Author Manuscript

Fundamental frequency
A linear mixed effect model was fitted with the respons variable fo and the fixed effects
terms (1) gender, (2) style, (3) room, (4) panel, (5) chronological order, with interactions of
(6) style and gender, (7) style and order and (8) style and panel. The random effect term was
subject. The reference levels were: Normal style, Reverberant room, Female and the
condition without panels. The output of the model is reported in Table III.

The estimate of the standard deviation of the random effect (subject) was 22.1 Hz, while the
residual standard deviation estimate was 34.7 Hz. The fixed effect coefficient for the
intercept was 207.7 Hz. The estimate for fo in males was 95.3 Hz lower than that of females.
The estimate for fo in the loud style was 36.0 Hz higher than that of the normal style. The
estimate for fo in the anechoic room was 3.7 Hz higher than that of the reverberant room,
Author Manuscript

while in the semi-reverberant room was 2.7 Hz higher. The estimate for fo with the inclusion
of panels was 0.9 Hz higher than that without panels. The slope of fo – chronological order
was 0.6 Hz (indicating an increase in fo of 0.6 Hz for every increase in task number of 1)
holding the other variables at their reference level, i.e. in the semi-reverberant room, in the
normal style, without panels. The full effect over 12 tasks on fo was a 6.1 Hz increase.

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 7

The interactions style-gender, style-order and style-panels were significant. There was a
Author Manuscript

smaller increase in fo (8.1 Hz smaller) in the loud style for males compared to females. A
steeper slope in fo (0.7 Hz higher) was found between the tasks in the loud style compared
with the normal style. The presence of panels in the loud style was associated with an fo
decrease of 1.4 Hz.

Post-hoc comparisons confirmed lower fo values in the reverberant room and there was a
statistically significant fo decrease with the increase in reverberation time (anechoic room –
reverberant room: estimate = 3.72 Hz, z = 13.39, p < 0.001, semi-reverberant – reverberant
room: estimate = 2.68 Hz, z = 9.70, p < 0.001; semi-reverberant – anechoic room: estimate =
−1.05 Hz, z = −3.72, p = < 0.001).

Figure 4 shows the mean values and the standard errors of fo in normal (upper) and loud
styles (lower) with and without panels. Higher values of fo were measured in the loud style
Author Manuscript

than in the normal style. The presence of panels did not change the fo in the normal style,
while in the loud style lower values were measured when panels were present. Figure 5
displays fo means and standard errors in the three rooms for males and females. There was a
decrease in fo with the increase in the reverberation time for both genders; however, fo in the
anechoic and semi-reverberant rooms was similar for male subjects. Figure 6 shows fo mean
values and standard errors over the 12 tasks in normal and loud styles, respectively. The
solid lines show the best linear fit and the band represents the 99% confidence intervals. The
slopes of regression lines, representing the effect of vocal fatigue on fo, were 0.35 Hz and
1.44 Hz in normal and loud styles, respectively. The full effect over the 12 tasks on fo was a
3.9 Hz increase in normal style and a 15.8 Hz increase in loud style.

Variation in Fundamental frequency

Author Manuscript

A linear mixed effect model was fitted with the response variable fo standard deviation
(std_fo) and the terms (1) style, (2) gender, (3) order and a random effect term (subject). The
reference levels were: Normal style and Female. The output of the model is reported in
Table IV.

The estimate of the standard deviation of the random effect (subject) was 7.4 Hz, while the
residual standard deviation was 3.2 Hz. The fixed effect coefficient for the intercept was
35.59 Hz. The estimate for std_fo in the loud style was 4.11 Hz higher than that in the
normal style. The estimate for std_fo for males was 16.11 Hz lower than for females. The
slope for std_fo – chronological order was 0.24 Hz and the full effect on std_fo over the 12
tasks was a 2.68 Hz increase.

Figure 7 displays, for males and females, the mean values and the standard errors of std_fo
Author Manuscript

over the 12 tasks in the normal and loud style, respectively. The solid lines show the best
linear fit and the bands represent the 99% confidence intervals. The slopes of regression
lines, representing the effect of vocal fatigue on std_fo, were 0.24 Hz and 0.28 Hz in the
normal and loud styles, respectively for females; however, for males they were 0.24 Hz and
0.13 Hz in the normal and loud style, respectively. For females, the full effect of
chronological order on std_fo was a 2.64 Hz increase in the normal style and a 3.08 Hz
increase in the loud style. For males it was a 2.64 Hz increase in the normal style and a 1.43

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 8

Hz increase in the loud style. The magnitude of fo variation was larger for females than
Author Manuscript

males and both genders increased fo variation in the loud style compared to the normal style.

Relationship between self-reported vocal effort and voice parameters

A linear mixed effect model was fitted with the response variable effort and the interaction
between gender and (1) ΔSPL mean (ΔSPL), (2) ΔSPL standard deviation (std_ΔSPL) and
(3) mean fundamental frequency (fo). The output of the model is reported in Table V. The
acoustical vocal parameters not statistically significant were not included in the model.

The estimate of the standard deviation of the random effect (subject) was 13.26, while the
residual standard deviation was 18.61. The fixed effect coefficient for the intercept was
−48.72. The perception of vocal effort increased when the voice parameters ΔSPL and fo
increased, while it corresponded to a decrease in voice modulation amplitude (std_ΔSPL).
Author Manuscript

In order to understand which predictors are more important in the modeling of the self-
reported vocal effort, an analysis of the relative importance was performed. A simple linear
model was fit with the response variable effort and the terms (1) ΔSPL, (2) std_ΔSPL and
(3) fo. The proportion of variance explained by the model was 32% (F-statistic = 37, degree
of freedom =236, p-value < 0.001). Using the metric lmg,19 the relative importance of the
three predictors was 66% for ΔSPL, 4% for std_ΔSPL and 30% for fo.

The perception of the vocal effort for gender, as function of ΔSPL, fo and std_ΔSPL is
shown in Figure 8. The families of lines correspond to the combinations of three fo and three
std_ΔSPL. A low, medium and high value of fo was chosen for males (100 Hz, 150 Hz and
200 Hz) and females (200 Hz, 250 Hz and 300 Hz), as well as a low, medium and high value
of std_ΔSPL (5 dB, 10 dB and 15dB).
Author Manuscript

DISCUSSION
Effect of speech style
The subjects of this study were asked to use two different speech styles: normal and loud.
The instructions given for the styles were, “speak in your normal voice” (normal) and
“imagine you are in a classroom and you want to be heard by all of the children” (loud).

The Dt_p mean value was higher in the loud style than in the normal style. With an increase
in speech level (i.e. in the loud style), it is known that vowels tend to be prolonged and
consonants shortened,20 leading to an increase in the number of voiced frames and the time
dose.
Author Manuscript

The fo mean was higher in the loud style than in the normal style for both males and
females. In the loud style, higher values of fo occurred, which is consistent with earlier
research,21 and could reflect the increase in vocal fold amplitude vibration caused by the
increase in lung pressure.5

In the loud style, higher variation in fo (std_fo) was observed for both males and females. In
the loud voice, which involves higher lung pressure than the normal voice, less cricothyroid

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 9

and thyroarytenoid muscle activity is required to achieve the same fo.5 Hence, with the same
Author Manuscript

level of muscle activity, a larger magnitude of variation of fo is obtained in the loud style.

Effect of room acoustics

The Dt_p mean values increased together with the reverberation time. A similar trend was
found by Astolfi et al.2, although in the present study higher Dt_p values were observed. In
this study, the speech material was a read text, while Astolfi et al.2 used free speech. This
difference in the speech material may have caused the differences in the range of Dt_p
values.

The fo mean values decreased when the reverberation time increased. Both genders tended
to increase fo in less reverberant environments, confirming the findings of Pelegrín-García et
al.1 A difference between fo values in reverberant and anechoic rooms of 4–5 Hz was found
in both studies. A more monotonous speech was produced in more reverberant rooms.
Author Manuscript

Effect of short term vocal fatigue

In the statistical models, the effect of the chronological order of the tasks, from task 1 to task
12, was evaluated. All three voice parameters (Dt_p, fo and std_fo) were shown to increase
with chronological task order, which indicated an effect of vocal fatigue.

Rantala et al.6 reported that teachers demonstrated a decrease in Dt_p between the first and
the last lesson within a single day by 0.8 %. Over 240 s of recording, voicing occurred for
80.6 s and 78.6 s, during the first and the last lesson, respectively. However, this result was
not statistically significant. In the current study, the subjects accumulated longer time doses.
Rantala et al.6 also found an increase between the first and last lesson in both fo and std_fo,
which is consistent with the results of the present study.
Author Manuscript

The quantification of the vocal fatigue is still an open research topic today; different
approaches have been used in the literature. Titze et al.22 studied the distributions of
occurrences and accumulations of voicing and silence periods. They recognized that it is
necessary to determine what rest period duration has a profound effect on vocal fatigue
recovery. Boucher23 analysed the correlation between acoustic parameters and estimates of
muscle fatigue using electromyography. He found that a brief rise in voice tremor
corresponded to a critical change in laryngeal muscle tissues, which can be considered as a
condition where continued vocal effort can increase the risk of lesions or others conditions
affecting voice.

Titze4 hypothesized that an increase in vocal tissue viscosity occurs with vocal fatigue.
Author Manuscript

Changes in the composition of fluids within the vocal folds can be caused by high vocal
loads and these changes can result in higher fold viscosity and stiffness. According to Titze,5
increased tissue viscosity should result in proportionally greater friction and heat dissipation
during vocal fold vibration. This reduction in phonatory efficiency would result in a
requirement for greater energy input in order to initiate and sustain oscillation of the folds,
i.e., higher phonation threshold pressure.

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 10

The hypothesis of Titze5 is consistent with findings of increasing time dose and fo values co-
Author Manuscript

occurring with increased fatigue. The higher phonation threshold pressure, occurring with
fatigue, will involve a longer damping of the vocal fold oscillation and an increased rate of
vibration. A longer damping of vocal fold oscillation may result in a longer time dose while
an increased rate of vibration may result in an increase in fo.

The present results can also be interpreted according to compensatory reactions to

alterations in the voice. In the Introduction it was stated that speakers can adjust their voice
to achieve the desired vocal output. The sensation of vocal fatigue and the related
physiological changes in the vocal folds could cause compensatory hyperfunctional
behavior. This behavior generally involves an increase in fold vibration and in the glottal
adductory forces.24

Relationship between self-reported vocal effort and voice parameters

Author Manuscript

As it was hypothesized, the voice SPL strongly influenced the self-reported vocal effort, but
it is not the only parameter that should be considered to assess vocal effort. The self-reported
vocal effort was also influenced by the fundamental frequency and modulation in amplitude.
As expected, the vocal parameter with the strongest influence on the effort was SPL, which
contributed to 66% of the variance explained by the model, followed by fundamental
frequency (30%) and modulation in amplitude (4%).

The perception of vocal effort increased when ΔSPL and fo increased. A similar result was
found by Pelegrín-García et al.1 pertaining to the vocal effort introduced by change in talker-
to-listener distance. Higher values of vocal effort have been associated with smaller
variability in SPL. It can be argued that speech type, characterized by more fluctuation in
amplitude, is associated to a lower perception of the vocal effort because the fluctuation
Author Manuscript

allows for rest periods during speech.

The family of lines presented in Figure 8 can be used to estimate the vocal effort of talkers,
starting from the SPL, the fo and standard deviation of SPL. These results can be interpreted
and used by clinicians to give appropriate treatment recommendations to reduce vocal effort.
As an example based on these results, if a female teacher during the lesson is talking with an
SPL 6 dB higher than her typical voice intensity, with a mean fundamental frequency of 300
Hz, her self-reported vocal effort (ranging from 0% = not at all effortful to 100% =
extremely effortful) will be equal to 88 % if her intensity modulation is 5 dB, 71% if it is 10
dB and 54% if it is 15. If the same teacher has a very low intensity modulation (for example
5 dB) and she is not able to modify that vocal behavior, the clinician can instruct her to
lower her fundamental frequency. If the woman is able to change her fundamental frequency
Author Manuscript

from 300 Hz to 200 Hz, her vocal effort would change from 88% to 63%.

CONCLUSIONS
The first aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of speech style and the acoustical
environment on time dose and fundamental frequency, while taking into account the effect of
short term vocal fatigue.

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 11

When subjects increased their voice levels, the three parameters analyzed (Dt_p, fo and
Author Manuscript

std_fo) increased. It can be argued that the increases are associated with the tendency to
prolong vowels in order to increase the voice power and to increase vocal fold amplitude
vibration caused by the increase in lung pressure. Moreover, while using the loud voice, less
cricothyroid and thyroarytenoid muscle activity is required to achieve the same f0.5 Hence,
with the same level of muscle activity, a larger magnitude of variation in f0 is obtained in the
loud style.

The talkers changed their speech differently in different reverberation times. With a goal of
maintaining intelligibility, they increased the vowels duration in a more reverberant
environment while they increased the articulation in a drier environment.

Short-term vocal fatigue was estimated by means of the changing in the voice over time,
independently from the other conditions. The results are consistent with the hypothesis of
Author Manuscript

Titze5 regarding the increase of phonation threshold pressure with the vocal fatigue.

The current study is in agreement with Titze5 in that increases in time dose and f0 values co-
occur with an increase in vocal fatigue. The higher phonation threshold pressure, occurring
with fatigue, will involve a longer damping of the vocal fold oscillation and an increased rate
of vibration. A longer damping of the vocal fold oscillation may result in a longer time dose,
while an increased rate of vibration may result in an increase in f0.

The second aim of the study is to understand which vocal parameters can predict self-
reported vocal effort. The vocal parameter with the strongest influence on the effort is SPL,
which contributes to 66% of the variance explained by the model, followed by fundamental
frequency (30%) and modulation in amplitude (4%). The perception of vocal effort
increased when the two voice parameters ΔSPL and fo increased and when the amplitude
Author Manuscript

voice modulation (std_ΔSPL) decreased.

The limitations of this paper include a small sample size, the atypical environments and the
fact that all the subjects were young and healthy. Future experiments should be conducted in
more typical environments such as classrooms. Furthermore, a larger sample size should be
used, including those with voice disorders.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the members of the Voice Biomechanics and Acoustics Laboratory, Michigan State
University and in particular Prof. E. J. Hunter Dr. S. Graetzer for their assistance. Additionally, he would like to
express his gratitude to the subjects involved in the experiment. This research was funded by the National Institute
on Deafness and other Communication Disorders of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number
R01DC012315. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official
Author Manuscript

views of the National Institutes of Health.

REFERENCES
1. Pelegrín-García D, Smits B, Brunskog J, Jeong C. Vocal effort with changing talker-to-listener
distance in different acoustic environments. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011; 129(4):1981–1990. [PubMed:
21476654]

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 12

2. Astolfi A, Carullo A, Pavese L, Puglisi GE. Duration of voicing and silence periods of continuous
speech indifferent acoustic environments. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015; 137(2):565–579. [PubMed:
Author Manuscript

25697991]
3. Hazan V, Baker R. Acoustic-phonetic characteristics of speech produced with communicative intent
to counter adverse listening conditions. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011; 130(4):2139–2152. [PubMed:
21973368]
4. ISO 3382-2. Acoustics — Measurement of Room Acoustic Parameters, Part 2: Reverberation Time
in Ordinary Rooms. Genève: International Organization for Standardization; 2008.
5. Titze, IR. Principle of voice production. Second Printing. Iowa City: National Center for Voice and
Speech; 2000. p. 229-233.p. 361-366.
6. Rantala L, Vilkman E, Bloigu R. Voice changes during working: subjective complaints and objective
measurements for female primary and secondary schoolteachers. J Voice. 2002; 16(4):344–355.
[PubMed: 12395987]
7. Bottalico P, Graetzer S, Hunter EJ. Effects of speech style, room acoustics and vocal fatigue on
vocal effort. J Acoust Soc Am. 2016; 139(5):2870–2827. [PubMed: 27250179]
8. ISO 9921. Ergonomics — Assessment of speech communication. Genève: International
Author Manuscript

Organization for Standardization; 2003.

9. Shield B, Dockrell J. External and internal noise surveys of London primary schools. J Acoust Soc
Am. 2004; 115(2):730–738. [PubMed: 15000185]
10. Titze IR, Švec JG, Popolo PS. Vocal Dose Measures: Quantifying Accumulated Vibration
Exposure in Vocal Fold Tissues. J Speech Lang. Hear Res. 2003; 46(6):919–932. [PubMed:
12959470]
11. Boersma, P. Accurate short-term analysis of the fundamental frequency and the harmonics-to-noise
ratio of a sampled sound. Proceeding of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: 1993.
12. R Development Core Team. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: 2011. R: A
language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org [Accessed Sept 23,
2016]
13. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4.
R package version 1.1-7. 2014 [Accessed Sept 23, 2016] https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/
Author Manuscript

lme4/.
14. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed-effects models. R
package version 2.0-20. 2014 [Accessed Sept 23, 2016] https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/
lmerTest/.
15. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P, Heiberger RM, Schuetzenmeister A, Scheibe S. multcomp:
Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. R package version 1.4-6. 2016 [Accessed
Sept 23, 2016] https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/multcomp/.
16. Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE transactions on automatic
control. 1974; 19(6):716–723.
17. Tukey JW. Components in regression. Biometrics. 1951; 7(1):33–69. [PubMed: 14830630]
18. Satterthwaite FE. An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometr. Bull.
1946; 2(6):110–114. [PubMed: 20287815]
19. Grömping U. Relative importance for linear regression in R: the package relaimpo. J Stat Softw.
2006; 17(1):1–27.
20. Fonagy I, Fonagy J. Sound pressure level and duration. Phonetica. 1966; 15:14–21.
Author Manuscript

21. Lieberman P, Knudson R, Mead J. Determination of the rate of change of fundamental frequency
with respect to subglottal air pressure during sustained phonation. J Acoust Soc Am. 1969;
45:1537–1543. [PubMed: 5803180]
22. Titze IR, Hunter EJ, Švec JG. Voicing and silence periods in daily and weekly vocalizations of
teachers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 121(1):469–478. [PubMed: 17297801]
23. Boucher VJ. Acoustic correlates of fatigue in laryngeal muscles: findings for criterion-based
prevention of acquired voice pathologies. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008; 51:1161–1170.
[PubMed: 18664703]

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 13

24. Villkman E, Lauri E-R, Alku P, Sala E, Sihvo M. Effects of prolonged oral reading on F0, SPL,
subglottal pressure and amplitude characteristics of glottal flow waveforms. J Voice. 1999; 13(2):
Author Manuscript

303–312. [PubMed: 10442763]

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 14
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

FIG. 1.
Experimental setup during the experiment.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 15
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

FIG. 2.
Author Manuscript

Mean Dt_p values accumulated in anechoic, semi-reverberant and reverberant rooms in

normal style (solid line) and loud style (dotted line) conditions, with standard errors shown
by error bars.

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 16
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

FIG. 3.
Author Manuscript

Mean Dt_p accumulated over the 12 tasks, with standard errors shown by error bars. The
solid line shows the best linear fit and the band represents the 99% confidence intervals.

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 17
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

FIG. 4.
Author Manuscript

Mean fo values recorded with and without reflective panels for normal (upper) and loud
(lower) styles, with standard errors shown by error bars.

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 18
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

FIG. 5.
Author Manuscript

Mean fo values recorded in anechoic, semi-reverberant and reverberant rooms for females
(upper) and males (lower), with standard errors shown by error bars.

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 19
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

FIG. 6.
Author Manuscript

Mean fo values over the 12 tasks in normal and loud style conditions, with standard errors
shown by error bars. The solid lines show the best linear fit and the band represents the 99%
confidence intervals.

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 20
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

FIG. 7.
Mean std_fo values over the 12 tasks for males and females in normal (left) and loud (right)
Author Manuscript

style conditions, with standard errors shown by error bars. The solid line shows the best
linear fit and the band represents the 99% confidence intervals.

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Bottalico Page 21
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

FIG. 8.
Author Manuscript

Perception of the vocal effort for gender, as function of ΔSPL, fo and std_ΔSPL. The
families of lines correspond to the combinations of three fo and three std_ΔSPL. A low,
medium and high value of fo was chosen for males (100 Hz, 150 Hz and 200 Hz) and
females (200 Hz, 250 Hz and 300 Hz), as well as a low, medium and high value of std_ΔSPL
(5 dB, 10 dB and 15dB).

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table I

Mean values in the 12 conditions (2 Styles, 3 Rooms and 2 Panels) for the variables Effort (%), ΔSPL (dB), std_ΔSPL(dB), fo(Hz) and std_fo (Hz) for
males and females and Dt_p (%).
Bottalico

Conditions Effort ΔSPL std_ΔSPL fo_ fo_ std_fo_ std_fo_ Dt_p

Males Females Males Females
Style Room Panel (%) (dB) (dB) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (Hz) (%)
Loud Anechoic Absent 65.2 4.7 10.7 150.9 256.7 24.4 41.9 69.5
Loud Anechoic Present 53.5 3.8 10.8 151.8 257.2 25.6 41.7 69.4
Loud Reverb. Absent 55.9 4.0 9.8 150.4 253.9 25.3 41.7 69.8
Loud Reverb. Present 49.6 2.8 9.5 149.2 250.9 24.6 41.5 68.8
Loud Semireverb. Absent 40.1 4.3 10.6 147.7 251.5 25.6 40.4 72.1
Loud Semireverb. Present 45.4 3.5 10.7 145.2 248.2 25.7 40.5 72.0
Normal Anechoic Absent 28.8 −3.5 8.6 119.4 213.1 19.8 36.4 66.0
Normal Anechoic Present 24.0 −4.3 8.9 117.8 217.7 21.1 40.7 65.9
Normal Reverb. Absent 25.7 −4.3 8.2 118.8 215.1 21.6 38.0 66.3
Normal Reverb. Present 19.8 −4.9 8.1 120.9 213.8 21.9 37.4 66.5
Normal Semireverb. Absent 25.9 −3.2 8.8 116.4 212.4 21.4 34.5 67.8
Normal Semireverb. Present 20.0 −4.1 8.8 116.5 212.3 20.5 36.1 67.9

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

Page 22
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table II

Linear mixed effect model output for response variable phonation time (Dt_p) fitted by REML. The following four factors are considered: (1) Style, (2)
Room, (3) Panel and (4) (chronological task) Order. For the intercept and for each fixed factor, the estimate, the standard error, the degrees of freedom, the
Bottalico

test statistic, t and the p value are reported.

Dt_p Estimate Std. Error df t value p value

(Intercept) 67.18 1.18 32 57.15 <0.0001 ***

Style Loud 3.54 0.42 215 8.45 <0.0001 ***
Anechoic Room −2.34 0.51 215 −4.55 <0.0001 ***
Semi-reverberant Room −2.09 0.51 215 −4.07 <0.0001 ***
Panel −0.10 0.42 215 −0.24 0.8106
Order 0.17 0.06 215 2.76 0.0064 **

Signif. Codes: ’***’<0.001 ’**’<0.01 ’*’<0.05 ’.’<0.1

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

Page 23
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table III

Linear mixed effect model output for response variable fo fitted by REML. The following factors are considered: (1) Style, (2) Room, (3) Panel, (4)
(chronological task) Order, (5) Gender and the interaction between (6) Style and Gender, (7) Style and Order and (8) Style and Panel. For the intercept,
Bottalico

for each fixed factor and interaction, the estimate, the standard error, the degrees of freedom, the test statistic, t and the p value are reported.

fo Estimate Std. Error df t value p value

(Intercept) 207.71 6.99 18 29.70 <0.0001 ***
Gender Male −95.33 9.88 18 −9.65 <0.0001 ***
Style Loud 35.98 0.58 93812 61.87 <0.0001 ***
Anechoic Room 3.72 0.28 93811 13.39 <0.0001 ***
Semi-reverberant Room 2.68 0.28 93811 9.70 <0.0001 ***
Order 0.55 0.05 93812 11.92 <0.0001 ***
Panel 0.86 0.33 93811 2.60 0.0092 **
Style Loud: Gender Male −8.13 0.46 93812 −17.85 <0.0001 ***
Style Loud: Order 0.66 0.07 93812 10.00 <0.0001 ***
Style Loud: Panel −2.29 0.45 93811 −5.03 <0.0001 ***

Signif. Codes: ’***’<0.001 ’**’<0.01 ’*’<0.05 ’.’<0.1

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

Page 24
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table IV

Linear mixed effect model output for response variable fundamental frequency standard deviation (std_fo) fitted by REML. The following three factors
are considered: (1) Style, (2) Gender and (3) (chronological task) Order. For the intercept, for each fixed factor and interaction, the estimate, the standard
Bottalico

error, the degrees of freedom, the test statistic, t and the p value are reported.

std_fo Estimate Std. Error df t value p value

(Intercept) 35.59 2.41 19 14.80 <0.0001 ***
Style Loud 4.11 0.42 218 9.84 <0.0001 ***
Gender Male −16.11 3.34 18 −4.82 <0.0001 ***
Order 0.24 0.06 218 4.04 <0.0001 ***

Signif. Codes: ’***’<0.001 ’**’<0.01 ’*’<0.05 ’.’<0.1

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

Page 25
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table V

Linear mixed effect model output for response variable effort fitted by REML. The following factors are considered: the interaction between gender and
(1) ΔSPL mean, (2) ΔSPL standard deviation (std_ΔSPL) and (3) fundamental frequency (fo). For the intercept, for each interaction, the estimate, the
Bottalico

standard error, the degrees of freedom, the test statistic, t and the p value are reported.

Effort Estimate Std. Error df t value p value

(Intercept) 14.33 22.30 62 0.64 0.523
ΔSPL:Gender Female 2.67 0.57 138 4.73 <0.001***
ΔSPL:Gender Male 2.57 0.78 86 3.30 0.001**
std_ΔSPL:Gender Female −3.45 1.46 202 −2.36 0.019*
std_ΔSPL:Gender Male −2.06 1.73 202 −1.19 0.235
fo:Gender Female 0.25 0.11 67 2.21 0.030*
fo:Gender Male 0.29 0.16 51 1.76 0.084.

Significance Codes: ’***’<0.001 ’**’<0.01 ’*’<0.05 ’.’<0.1

J Voice. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 01.

Page 26