Vocal Impact of a Prolonged Reading Task in Dysphonic versus Normophonic Female Teachers

(1)

Vocal Impact of a Prolonged Reading Task

in Dysphonic versus Normophonic

Female Teachers

Angélique REMACLE, Dominique MORSOMME, Elise BERRUE, Camille FINCK

Unité de Logopédie de la voix

Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l’Education Université de Liège

(2)

Background

• PhD about vocal loading

• Previous study1_{: vocal impact of a 2-hour}

reading task in normophonic females without professional voice use

• This study2_{: vocal impact of a 2-hour reading}

task in normophonic and dysphonic female teachers

(1) Remacle A, Finck C, Roche A, Morsomme D. Vocal Impact of a Prolonged Reading Task at Two Intensity Levels: Objective Measurements and Subjective Self-Ratings. J. Voice. In press (2) Remacle A, Morsomme D, Berrué E, Finck C. Vocal Impact of a Prolonged Reading Task in

(3)

Methods: participants

16 dysphonic female teachers (33.8 years) 16 normophonic female teachers (34.1 years)

(4)

Methods: loading task

Reading a novel in French for imaginary students

(5)

Methods: evaluation protocol

Before the task and every 30 minutes

• Acoustic analysis (MDVP)

F0, Jitter%, Shimmer%

• Voice range measurements (VRP)

Frequency and intensity

• Aerodynamic measurements (Aerophone II)

Maximum Phonation Time Subglottic Pressure, SPL

(6)

The questions are:

• What are the effects of a two-hour reading task on teachers’ voice?

• Does the vocal load affect differently the

dysphonic teachers than the healthy teachers?

Statistical analysis: repeated measures ANOVA * p<.05

(7)

Results: acoustic measurements

190 200 210 220 230 240 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 F0 * Hz

(8)

Results: acoustic measurements

0 1 2 3 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 Shimmer * Jitter (NS) %

(9)

Results: voice range measurements

Lowest frequency * Highest frequency *

Frequency range: no significant effect of duration

120 130 140 150 160 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 700 800 900 1000 1100 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 Hz Hz

(10)

Results: voice range measurements

Lowest intensity (NS) Highest intensity *

Intensity range significantly increases during the reading

60 62 64 66 68 70 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 96 98 100 102 104 106 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 dB dB

(11)

Results: aerodynamic measurements

14 16 18 20 22 24 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4

Maximum Phonation Time

*

(12)

Results: aerodynamic measurements

Subglottic Pressure SPL 7 8 9 10 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 80 82 84 86 88 90 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 * * cmH₂O dB

(13)

Results: aerodynamic measurements

Subglottic Pressure SPL 7 8 9 10 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 80 82 84 86 88 90 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 * * cmH₂O dB *

(14)

Results: few differences between

normophonic and dysphonic groups

Highest frequency* Frequency range*

600 800 1000 1200 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 10 20 30 40 50 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 Normophonics Normophonics Dysphonics Dysphonics Hz Hz

(15)

Results: few differences between

normophonic and dysphonic groups

Dysphonics Normophonics 6 7 8 9 10 11 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 Subglottic Pressure* cmH₂O

(16)

Results: interaction between the

duration and the group only for

130 140 150 160 T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 Lowest Frequency* Dysphonics Normophonics Hz

(17)

Conclusions:

effects of a 2-hour reading task

• Acoustic analysis and voice range

measurements suggest an

increased laryngeal tension

• Aerodynamic measurements suggest

1)

lower voice efficiency – increased

viscosity and stiffness of the vocal folds

2)

adaptation to vocal loading

(18)

Conclusions:

normophonic versus dysphonic groups

• Few differences between both groups

• Voice evolution through the reading task

similar for the normophonic and the

(19)

Unité de Logopédie de la voix

Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l’Education Université de Liège

Belgium

Angelique.Remacle@ulg.ac.be