12 collyer s

8/12/2019 12 collyer s

1/10

8/12/2019 12 collyer s

2/10

(eg,7) but it also has strong advocates (eg,4). The lack of percep-

tual study of the abdomen-ouT directive, in particular, means

these criticismsare untested.

Swank10(p13) tested the following abdominal-inward

directive:

As you sing the next tones, feel the muscles of the abdominal

wall contract, with gradual compression, beginning very low

and moving inward and upward gradually. Let the muscleslow in the abdomen help you lift the airflow upward and out.

Swank10 found that this directive was less effective in elicit-

ing vocal change on a range of acoustical measures, including

tone duration and energy in theregion 28003300 Hz associ-

ated with the singers formant.16 Two points arise from this

observation. Firstly, the relationship between acoustical mea-

sures and listener preferences is highly complex and not yet

fully understood.1719 Thus, the acoustical results reported by

Swank cannot be assumed to imply a deterioration in vocal

quality. For example, an increase in tone duration can occur

when a singer increases vocal-fold medial compression, but

a voice that sounds pressed would not be considered as animprovement in classical singing. This means that the percep-

tual implications of the acoustical changes observed by Swank

are unclear.

Secondly, Swank10 did not measure respiratory behavior. In

an earlier study,20 we investigated the effects on female classi-

cal singers CWK behavior of abdomen-iN and abdomen-ouT

directives. Our abdomen-iN directive was comparable with

that of Swank10 and asked that the singers steadily pull the

abdominal wall inward for each phrase whilst singing, whereas

the abdomen-ouT directive asked that the singers steadilyexpand the abdominal wall during singing. The abdomen-ouT

directive was of interest given the conflicting opinions of its

appropriateness in singing pedagogy, discussed above. We

found that highly trained singers can alter aspects of their

CWK behavior under directive and can sustain these changes

throughout a song. However, the changes that occurred were

a function of the interaction of the directive and the singers

habitual (ie, undirected) CWK behavior. Also, the amount ofchange varied among singers, with some singers showing large

change and some very little change under each directive. Our

results showed that assessment of the influence of any directive

on vocal quality must take into account how and to what extent

CWK behavior has actually changed, especially given the wide

differences in singers kinematic strategies that have been

observed.

2123

It seems reasonable to assume that the singersstudied by Swank10 would have shown a similar interactive

effect of habit and directive, but without CWK data the extent

to which this might have affected the acoustical results cannot

be determined.

The relationship between CWK behavior under a physiolog-

ically based directive and perception of voice does not appear to

have been investigated. Abdominal directives have been studied

for inhalation, withmixed outcomes in terms of effect on vocal

quality. Thomasson24 found no significant effect for profes-

sional singers on a range of voice source parameters, including

vertical laryngeal position. Iwarsson,25 however, found a higher

vertical laryngeal position for speakers in the abdomen-ouT

condition (after controlling for LV), which post hoc investiga-

tion associated with changes in posture. Again, neither of the

studies incorporated an audio perceptual component.

Studies of nonphysiologically based directives have found

perceptible changes in vocal quality with changes in respiratory

behavior. Foulds-Elliott et al26 found that instructing profes-

sional singers to perform with emotional connection led tohigher LV at the start of phrases and lower at the end and con-

sequently larger expenditure of air than when merely singing

loudly. They also found that experienced listeners could distin-

guish audio samples with and without emotional connection,

although interestingly the perceptual cues reported by the

listeners did not include any assessment of changes in breathing

during phonation.

Another nonphysiological directive often used in pedagogy

is to support thevoice with the breath, considered essential

for the singing voice13 despite the elusiveness of an agreed def-

inition for the term support. Thorpe et al asked singers to

imagine they were projecting their voices over a large or

small orchestra,27(p100) a directive which the authors associ-ated with greater and lesser abdominal support, respectively.

Kinematic patterns were similar in both conditions, but greater

projection was associated with higher LV at the end of phrases

and concomitantly smaller expenditure of air. Despite the asso-

ciation of projection with abdominal activity, they found LV

changes to be mostly because of changes in ribcage dimension.

Even so, changes in sound level and frequency spectrum char-

acteristics could not be correlated with changes in respiratory

parameters.

Griffin et al28 (p51) found that the direction to sing with sup-port elicited no changes in respiratory behavior, despite noting

that the subjects in this study clearly believe that a supported

singing voice is.

produced by managing breathing activity

differently. They did, however, find significant changes in

acoustic and laryngeal measures (including peak glottal air-

flow) that implied changes in voice quality. Although they did

not conduct a perceptual study, strong listener agreement in as-

sessing the presence and degree of support present in audiosamples has beenreported by Sand and Sundberg.29

Sonninen et al30 also found laryngeal and acoustic differ-

ences in singers asked to sing with and without support, but lis-

tener perception was more complex. Although listeners were

generally able to identify supported and unsupported singing

samples, their assessment of the degree of support (0100%)

present in a sample varied widely. Indeed, three of the sevensingers could not differentiate between supported and unsup-

ported singing when listening to their own recordings 2 months

after data collection. The authors noted that [t]hese samples

also caused difficulties to other listeners.30(p231) Respiratory

behavior was not measured, so the extent of change in the

singers breathing under directive is unknown. Interestingly,

they found no distinction between ratings for voice quality

and for support, suggesting that the terms and concepts were

interchangeable.

In summary, studies of nonphysiologically based directives

have produced mixed results in terms of changes in respiratory

Journal of Voice, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2011e16

8/12/2019 12 collyer s

3/10

behavior and consequent changes in vocal quality. The diffi-

culty with nonphysiologically based directives from a singing

training perspective is that they lack clear and agreed definition.

This has led singing teachers to rely on more direct, physiolog-

ically based instruction, but the perceptible effects of such in-

structions are unknown.

This study asked classical singing teachers and vocal coaches

to assess the standard of singing and of breath management ofsingers performing under three conditions: habitually (ie, undi-

rected) and under two simple, specific, and dichotomous

abdominal kinematic directives: abdomen-iN and abdomen-

ouT. The audio samples were derived from the companion

study20 that analyzed the type and extent of change in respira-

tory behavior elicited by the directives. That study found that

the singers habitual abdominal behavior lay on a continuum

between the extremes elicited by the two directives, generally

resembling one directive more than the other. Therefore, it

was hypothesized that listeners would be able to detect a differ-

ence in standard of singing and standard of breath management

proportionate to the degree of CWK change exhibited by the

singer. It was further hypothesized that listeners would ratehabitual singing higher than nonhabitual singing and, in turn,

would rate singing under the abdomen-iN directive higher

than under the abdomen-ouT directive.

METHOD

The study was approved by the Human Ethics Committee of

The University of Sydney. Fourteen singing teachers and vocal

coaches experienced with classical singing voice assessed

audio samples of five female classical singers under three

breathing conditions. All participants received an information

sheet and gave written informed consent.

Audio samples

Audio and respiratory recordings were made of five profes-

sional female classical singers: three sopranos (Singers A, B,

and E), one mezzo-soprano (D), and one contralto (C), ranging

from 31 to 44 years of age. All singers held postgraduate qual-

ifications in singing and had between 7 and 20 years of profes-

sional performing experience. At the time of recording, Singer

D was in her 19th week of pregnancy but was maintaining her

full performance schedule. Recordings were made at the audio-

recording laboratory at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music

(The University of Sydney), measuring 4.843 4.553 2.64 m

and hung with sound-absorptive curtains (http://www.jands.com.au/). Respiratory measurements were made using respira-

tory inductance plethysmography (Inductotrace; Ambulatory

monitoring system Inc., Ardsley, NY). Audio recordings were

made with a pair of cardioid microphones (Neumann, SKM

140, Georg Neumann GmbH, Berlin) in ORTF (Office de

Radiodiffusion Television Francaise) configuration31 placed

2.75 m from the singer. Sound intensity has been found to influ-

ence listener assessment of voice.32 Analysis of the audio

recordings20 confirmed that the equivalent sound level calcu-

lated from long-term average spectra of the last four phrases

was consistent across breathing condition (F2,8 2.795,

P 0.12), that is, any listener preferences in this study could

not be attributed to differences in sound level between perfor-

mances.

Each singer sang two takes of Caccinis Ave Maria in g minor

(unornamented, no repeat) without instruction (Habitual) and

two takes under each of the following directives:

N Abdomen-iN: steadily pull the abdominal wall inwardduring phonation, using an additional inward pull if re-

quired for additional support and

T Abdomen-ouT: steadily expand the abdominal wall dur-

ing phonation, using an additional outward expansion if

required for additional support.

CWK plots of ribcage and abdominal dimensions during the

last four phrases of the song were made for each singer.20

Examples aregivenin Figure1. CWKplots show thecontribution

of abdominal (abscissa) and ribcage (ordinate) dimensional

change to change in LV, with the axes scaled to contribution

capacity (after22). Kinematic traces that run parallel to the

45 isovolume lines represent a change in ribcage:abdomenconfiguration but no change in LV. Traces that move to the left

of an isovolume line represent a net decrease in LV even where

the ribcage or abdominal dimension might be increasing. The

small cross represents ribcage:abdomen configuration at end-ex-

piratory level, that is, at the end of expiration in quiet breathing.

The plots were used to select the three takes (one per breathing

condition) that showed the greatest variance in kinematic behav-

ior, and the audio samples from these takes were used for the per-

ceptual study. That is to say, the audio samples were chosen

according to respiratory behavior not according to the sound.

Two audio CDs were constructed using the last four phrases of

the chosen take under each breathing condition (H, N, and T).

The order of singers was different on each CD, and the order of

breathing condition was randomized within that. Audio samples

ofthe firsttwosingerson eachCD (SingersA and B onCD#1 and

E and D on CD#2) were repeated. Odd-numbered listeners heard

CD#1 (Singers A, B, C, A, D, E, B) and even-numbered listeners

heard CD#2 (Singers E, D, C, B, E,A, D).Repeating two singerssamples allowed us to assess how consistently listeners assessed

the same sample on different hearings. Randomizing and using

two CD sets minimized the possibility that results reflected sam-

ple order rather than inherent vocal quality. Furthermore, the

threeindividual samples for each singer were preceded by a com-

posite track that concatenated the threesamples (with a 4-s pause

between) in the same order. Thus, each CD contained 28 tracks:sevensingers3 fourtracks. Studieshave found thatlistenerstendto use the first sample heard as a context for subsequent sam-

ples17,33 and that listeners internal standards of voice quality

are inherently unstable.34 Playing the concatenated track first

was designed to have all three samples set the comparative con-

textand to providea wash-out of theinfluenceof assessment of

a previous singer on a subsequent singer.35

Listener data

The 14 listeners consisted of 11 classical singing teachers, of

whom six maintained a national and/or international

Sally Collyer, et al Listener Perception of Abdominal Directives in Singing e17
http://www.jands.com.au/http://www.jands.com.au/http://www.jands.com.au/http://www.jands.com.au/

8/12/2019 12 collyer s

4/10

performance schedule, two chorus-masters, one accompanist,

and one singing-voice researcher specializing in classical voice.

All but one held tertiary qualifications in music, the exception

being a singing teacher who had retired from performing after

a career, including leading roles at Covent Garden and the Met-

ropolitan Opera, and all were employed full-time professionally

in their respective fields. Hearing was not tested, but all re-

ported normal hearing and all rely on accurate hearing for their

professions. Data collection was conducted in quiet rooms with

only the participant and one researcher present, using a CD

player (Sony Model CFD V8; Sony CFD S300; or Sony CD

Walkman DEJ885 W, Sony Corp., Tokyo) and headphones

(Sennheiser, HD 650, Sennheiser Electronics GmbH, Wede-

mark-Wennebostel, Germany). Listeners first heard the com-

posite track containing all three samples in the same order in

which they would be presented individually. They then heard

the first sample that they assessed using five visual analog

(VA) scales with gradations numbered 010 from left to right.

The greater resolution of continuous scales has been found to

improve listener agreement over equal-interval scales by not

forcing a choice between ratings on samples perceived to fall

between intervals.3537 Listeners were asked to rate the first

sample by placing a vertical mark and the number 1 above

it on each scale, before moving to the second sample. During

explanation of the task, a dummy completed sheet was used

to illustrate how to complete the form. Sample assessments

on this dummy form included a mix of widely and closely

spaced marks, so as to encourage but not to prescribe that lis-teners make full use of a scales range. Listeners were not con-

strained from marking between gradations (eg, at a location

equating to 6.3) or from giving two samples the same score.

The first scale asked, Please assess the standard of singing

for each sample and the second asked, Please assess the stan-

dard of breath management for each sample. (The three re-

maining scales addressed tone color, vibrato rate, and vibrato

extent and are not included in this study.) Standard of singing

was positioned first as Stanley et al38 found judges make an

overall assessment before attending to specific criteria. Scales

also had the cues poor (underneath 0), average (under

5), and excellent (under 10). Listeners were given as much

time as they wished to assess each sample before hearing thenext sample, but tracks were not repeated. Fresh sheets were

provided for each set of three samples, and listeners could not

refer to previous sheets. Data collection generally took 11.5

hours.

The listener criteria standard of singing and breath man-

agement were deliberately general in nature, and no clarifica-

tion or further explanation of the terms was provided. Listeners

were invited, but not required, to add comments in the space

provided beneath each scale if they wished to clarify aspects

of their assessments. Intra- and interjudge reliability in assess-

ing singers have been found to be higher for general (overall)

assessmentsthan for specific criteria in singing39 and in speech

pathology.17 Listeners have also been found to differ as to

whether they assess on performance or intrinsic vocal quality,39

and it was intended that the term standard of singing should

encompass both aspects. The implicit inclusion in listeners

assessments of factors not relevant to this study, such as diction

and phrasing, was not considered significant because compari-

sons were between performances by the same singer.

Listeners were made aware of the purpose of the study and of

the breathing directives that had been given to the singers. This

ensured that listeners worked from an equal knowledge base

and encouraged them to focus on the breathing behavior of

the singers. They were informed that respiratory measurements

had been made of the singers but not whether the directives hadelicited changes in respiratory behavior. Because only five

singers were used, it was anticipated that experienced listeners

would be likely to recognize a repetition. Therefore, listeners

were explicitly told that two singers samples would be heard

twice, again to ensure that all listeners worked from an equal

knowledge base.

Data analysis

The score for each listener criterion for each sample was mea-

sured by ruler in millimeters and input into a customized

spreadsheet (Excel 2003, Microsoft) that converted the result

% Abdominal capacity

yticapacegacbiR

%

25 50 75

75

50

25100%LV

0%

LV

Decreasing

LV

Singer A Singer D

Singer B Singer E

Singer C

FIGURE 1. Examples of the changes in CWK behavior elicited by

abdominal kinematic directive for the five singers. (Thick solid line

habitual, broken line abdomen-iN, fine solid line abdomen-ouT;

LV, lung volume.) Construction of the plots is described in Method:

Audio samples. These plots compare the second-last phrase of the

first or second take (whichever was used in the perceptual study; refer

to Method: Audio samples) under the three conditions, showing the

nature and extent of kinematic change elicited by directive and under-lying the audio samples. Axes are scaled to percentage of abdominal

and ribcage capacity.14


8/12/2019 12 collyer s

5/10

into a percentage. This was checked against a visually esti-

mated score. Comments were also recorded on the spreadsheet.

Statistical analysis usedlinear mixed modelingin SPSS(v14.0

for Windows) (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) with repeated measures.

Model testing for best-fit of covariance structure used the cor-

rected Akaike Information Criterion40 because of the small sam-

ple size. A criterion ofP < 0.05 for pairwise comparisons was

adjusted (Bonferroni) for three multiple comparisons (H vs T,N vs T, and H vs N), giving a significance criterion ofP < 0.017.

Intralistener (test-retest) repeatability was assessed by corre-

lation (Pearsons r) and by modeling with singer and breathing

condition as fixed factors and hearing (first and second) as the

repeated measure. (Only scores from the second hearing were

used in the other analyses.) The relationship between the two

listener criteria was similarly tested by correlation and by mod-

eling, with the score for each criterion as the repeated measure.

Interlistener consistency for each listener criterion was assessed

from covariance parameters obtained by a mixed effects model,

with singer and listeneras random factors and breathing condi-

tion as a fixed factor.41

Listener scores were analyzed using linear mixed modelingwith fixed factors of singer and breathing condition. Data

were arranged in the order T-N-H to reflect assumptions that

the abdomen-ouT behavior is the least-favored pedagogically

and that habitual behavior would score higher than the nonha-

bitual behaviors. For both listener criteria, the scaled identity

covariance structure was the best fit for both random and re-

peated effects and singer (but not breathing condition) was

a random factor. Significant interactions were assessed by pair-

wise comparisons.

RESULTS

CWK patterns

Examples of the CWK patterns of the singers from the audio

samples used in this study are plotted in Figure 1. The plots

show the second-last phrase drawn from the three takes (one

per breathing condition) used for the perceptualstudy. Respira-

tory analysis reported in the companion study20 found that the

directives led the singers to alter the abdominal and ribcage di-mensions at the start but not at the end of phrases and that LV

measurements were unchanged.Figure 1illustrates how habit-

ual kinematic strategy changed with directive for each of the

singers, highlighting similarity and difference between habitual

and directive patterns. This information allowed the perceptual

results to take into consideration how much behavioral changewas actually elicited.

Singer As habitual pattern lay very close to the abdomen-iNend of the continuum; accordingly, the abdomen-ouT directive

had a major effect on her kinematic behavior, completely re-

moving ribcage paradoxing and disrupting smooth coordination

between abdomen and ribcage. Singer B showed clear differ-

ences between the three conditions: abdominal paradoxing (ex-

pansion during phonation) under N suggested that she found the

sharp initial decrease unsustainable but there was no such dis-

ruption under T, although it is clear that she was resisting her

habitual tendency for abdominal contraction. Singer C showed

the most striking differences between conditions, with ribcage

paradoxing under N and abdominal paradoxing under T. By

contrast, Singer D showed the least change across condition,

although adjustments that were characteristic of other singers

(increased ribcage paradoxing in N, delayed abdominal con-

traction in T) were clear in her kinematic plots. Lastly, Singer

Es kinematic trace for N generally paralleled her habitual trace.

In summary, habitual patterns seemed to lie toward the abdo-men-iN end of the continuum for Singers A, D, and E, toward

the abdomen-ouT end for Singer B, and midway for Singer C.

Intra- and interlistener consistency

For both listener criteria, test-retest correlations were moderate

(standard of singing r 0.683,P < 0.001; breath manage-

mentr 0.674,P < 0.001), and there were significant differ-ences between scores for the first and second hearing. Model

testing resulted in a scaled identity covariance structure, with

singer (but not breathing condition) as a random factor. For

standard of singing, main effects of singer (P< 0.001),

breathing condition (P 0.016), and hearing (P< 0.001) were

all significant, as were interactions of singer3condition(P< 0.001) and singer3hearing (P 0.034). For breath man-

agement, singer was the only significant main effect

(P< 0.001), but interactions of singer3condition (P 0.003)

and singer3hearing (P 0.008) were again significant. The in-

teraction of singer3condition3hearing was not significant for

either criterion and was removed from the final models.

Pairwise comparisons for the singer3hearing interaction

found that listeners rated standard of singing higher on

second hearing for two of the four singers (Singer D mean

difference12.2, standard error [SE] 2.9, P< 0.001;

Singer E mean difference 6.9, P< 0.001), whereas listeners

rated the breath management higher on second hearing for

Singer D (mean difference 10.1, SE 3.4, P

8/12/2019 12 collyer s

6/10

two scales being vertically aligned on the page, so that the

disparity would have been visible to the listeners.

Criterion scores

Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were nonsignificant (standard of

singingZ

0.51; breath managementZ

0.39) and visualexamination of residual plots identified no trends, confirming

normality of residual distribution. Tests of fixed effects are

set out in Table 1. For both criteria, there was a significant

main effect for singer (P< 0.001). Pairwise comparisons found

that the scores for Singers B and E were significantly higher

than for Singers A, C, and D, and this can be seen in Figure 2.

There was a significant main effect of breathing condition for

standard of singing (P 0.019) but not for breath manage-

ment (P 0.102). However, the interaction of singer3breath-

ing condition was significant in both criteria (P< 0.001), that is,

there were significant differences between condition but only

for some singers.

These differences are broken down in the pairwise compari-

sons for the singer3breathing condition interaction in Table 2

and can also be seen in Figure 2. Pairwise comparisons were

tested at a Bonferroni-adjusted significance of P < 0.17. For

standard of singing, Singer A scored significantly lower in

the abdomen-ouT condition than in the other conditions, whereas

Singer D scored higher in the habitual condition than under eitherdirective. For breath management, Singer A again scoredlower in the abdomen-ouT condition than in the other conditions.

Singer D again scored higher in the habitual condition than under

the abdomen-iN directive, but scores under the abdomen-ouT di-

rective were not significantly lower, as they were for standard of

singing. Singer B scored higher under the abdomen-ouT direc-

tive than under the abdomen-iN. Her mean score under T was

also higher than for her habitual samples but failed to reach Bon-

ferroni-adjusted significance (P 0.17). Singer Es habitual

singing was rated more highly than her singing under T for

both criteria but again the differences were not statistically

significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons.

TABLE 1.

Linear Mixed Modeling of the TwoCriteria Found a Significant Interaction of Breathing Condition and Singer, That Is, There

Were Significant Differences in Ratings on Both Criteria Between Breathing Condition but Only for Some Singers

Standard of Singing Standard of Breath Management

Fixed effects

Breathing condition F2,128.9 4.085, P 0.019 F2,128.6 2.327,P 0.102

Singer F4,68.6 22.947,P < 0.001 F4,70.4 15.645,P < 0.001

Condition3singer F8,128.9 4.969, P < 0.001 F2,128.6 3.425,P 0.001

0

20

40

60

80

100

T N H T N H T N H T N H T N H

A B C D E

Singer (by breathing condition)

)001fotuo(erocS

FIGURE 2. Estimatedmarginalmeans and standard errors of listener scores (out of 100) for standard of singing (solidsquares) and standard ofbreath management (crosses). Scores are grouped by singer (AE), then by breathing condition (abdomen-ouT, abdomen-iN, and habitual). Singers

B and E scored significantly higher than did Singers A, C, and D on both listener criteria. Scores for the two criteria were highly correlated, but

listeners rated breath management more critically (lower) than standard of singing for all singers except Singer C.


8/12/2019 12 collyer s

7/10

DISCUSSIONBreath management is acknowledged as fundamental to sing-

ing, but its training relies on the assumption that a singers

breathing behavior has a direct and proportionate effect on

the singers vocal quality. The corollary, that changes elicited

by physiologically based CWK directives can be monitored im-

mediately by the singing teachers assessment of vocal quality,

is especially important because breathing instruction is becom-

ing increasingly defined in terms of physiology. This studytested whether the type and degree of change in CWK pattern

elicited by two simple, specific, and dichotomous abdominal ki-

nematic directives proportionately matched the assessment ofstandard of singing and of breath management of female profes-

sional classical singers, assessed from audio samples by

listeners experienced with the classical singing voice. The

singers sang under three breathing conditions: without instruc-

tion (habitually), pulling the abdominal wall inward duringphonation (abdomen-iN), and expanding the abdominal wall

during phonation (abdomen-ouT).

The first hypothesis was that listeners would be able to detect

a difference in standard of singing and standard of breath man-

agement proportionate to the degree of CWK change exhibited

by the singer. Key to this was to take into consideration the

degree of similarity between each directive and the singers

habitual CWK strategy. The results for Singers A and B wereconsistent with the hypothesis. Singer As habitual pattern

was very similar to her strategy under the abdomen-iN directive

and both were markedly different from the abdomen-ouT direc-

tive. Likewise, listener ratings found no difference between her

singing in H and N but found both differed from her singing un-

der T. Singer Bs CWK pattern differed less between conditions

than did Singer As, but her habitual pattern tended to be closer

to T. Likewise, listeners rated her breath management to be bet-ter in T than N but not different under directive than habitually.

Although ratings for the standard of singing showed the same

trend, the smaller differences were not statistically significant

after Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons.

Strictly speaking, Singer Es results could also be considered

as consistent with the hypothesis. Her habitual pattern more

closely resembled that under the abdomen-iN directive, and

listener scores averaged highest for her habitual singing and

lowest for her abdomen-ouT singing. However, the differences

between CWK patterns were small and between listeners scores

were not significantly different after Bonferroni adjustment.

Her results, therefore, do not contradict but also do not support

the hypothesis.

The results for Singers C and D were not consistent with thehypothesis. Singer C showed the most change in CWK strategy

under directive, yet there was no significant difference in

listener ratings. Singer D showed the least change in CWK pat-

tern, yet listeners found the standard of both singing and breath

management in the nonhabitual conditions to be inferior to

habitual behavior. Thus, the results for Singers A, B, and E

appeared consistent with the hypothesis but the results for

Singers C and D were not.

It was also hypothesized that listeners would rate habitual

singing higher than nonhabitual singing and, in turn, would

rate singing under the abdomen-iN directive higher than under

the abdomen-ouT directive, following pedagogical opinion that

abdomen-ouT behavior is deleterious to vocal quality. Again,

the results were mixed. In terms of habitual versus nonhabitual

breathing, only Singer D scored significantly higher for H than

under either directive. However, the strong similarity between

Singer As H and N CWK strategies meant that her significantly

lower scores under Talso support this hypothesis. Lastly, Singer

Es results showed higher listener preference for habitual than

nonhabitual breathing but the differences were not statistically

significant. Mean ratings for Singers B and C went against the

hypothesis but again the differences were not statistically

significant.

TABLE 2.

Pairwise Comparisons of the Interaction of Breathing Condition and Singer

Singer

H vs N H vs T N vs T

Mean Difference, P Mean Difference,P Mean Difference,P

Standard of singing

A 3.2,P 0.326 10.6, P 0.001* 13.8, P < 0.001*

B 5.2, P 0.106 2.5,P 0.437 7.8, P 0.017**C 4.2,P 0.194 4.2,P 0.200 0.1, P 0.988

D 11.6, P 0.001* 9.3, P 0.005* 2.3, P 0.482

E 2.9, P 0.375 7.2, P 0.027** 4.3, P 0.180

Standard of breath management

A 1.9, P 0.629 12.1, P 0.003* 10.1, P 0.011*

B 3.5, P 0.381 6.5, P 0.100 10.0, P 0.012*

C 3.6, P 0.362 3.7, P 0.349 0.1, P 0.981

D 11.6, P 0.004* 6.7, P 0.093 4.9, P 0.219

E 2.6, P 0.509 8.5, P 0.033** 5.9, P 0.138

*Significant at P < 0.17; **Significant without Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons.


8/12/2019 12 collyer s

8/10

In terms of ratings under abdomen-iN being higher than un-

der abdomen-ouT, only Singer As ratings supported this and

only at face value. That is to say, the strong similarity between

her H and N CWK strategies noted above suggests that the

lower listener rating associated with the abdomen-ouT directive

might occur with any nonhabitual directive, as was the

case with Singer D. Singer Bs results did not support the

hypothesis, showing a significantly higher listener preferencefor T than N. Again, habitual CWK strategy needs to be taken

into consideration, as Singer Bs H pattern was much closer to T

than to N. Listeners also preferred T to N for Singer D but not

significantly so.

In summary, we found that the ability of experienced

listeners to detect changes in breathing behavior depended on

the individual singer and on the extent to which the directive

deviated from the singers habitual pattern. Furthermore, we

found no support for the pedagogical assertion that the abdo-

men-ouT directive necessarily results in a perceptibly lower

standard of singing. Rather, our findings suggested that the stan-

dard of singing was compromised by any directive that elicited

CWK behavior antithetical to habitual behavior.Our results raise four issues with respect to the study of

breathing training methods in singing: habitual kinematic

behavior, limitations of body-surface measurement, participant

pool, and improving reliability in perceptual studies in singing.

Habitual kinematic behavior

Any assessment of a breathing directive should consider CWK

strategy throughout the entire phrase, not just excursion-only or

LV measures, and should incorporate in the assessment the type

and extent of change in CWK strategy elicited by the directive

in the context of the singers habitual CWK strategy. By refer-

ring to habitual behavior, the apparently contradictory results

for Singers A, B, and D were in fact consistent in terms of

any directive eliciting nonhabitual behavior.

Limitations of body-surface measurement

It must be remembered that body-surface measurement has lim-

itations in describing underlying change in respiratory behav-

ior. This was clearly a factor in the results for Singer D,

whose CWK strategies showed small differences between

breathing conditions, yet were quite audible to experienced lis-

teners. It is possible that her pregnancy reduced the range of her

abdominal movement that could be detected by body-surfacemeasurement, although we are not aware of any studies into

the effect of pregnancy on CWK behavior in singers, and the

singer was maintaining a full performance schedule. Techno-

logical limitations mean that the relationship between CWK

strategy, muscular activity, and respiratory proprioception is

poorly understood. Likewise, from the teachers perspective,

the relationship between CWK strategy defined in terms of con-

tribution to LV change (as used in respiratory research) and in

terms of dimensional change (as observed in the teaching

studio) needs much clarification before results of CWK studies

can be applied in the studio.

Participant pool

It could be argued that the highly trained singers in our study

have already optimized their habitual abdominal behavior. If

so, mean scores for breath management for Singers A, C,

and D (

8/12/2019 12 collyer s

9/10

management is in effect a subset of the scale for standard of

singing. A subscale would suggest a wider range of scores for

breath management. It would also suggest that a given in-

crease in rating for breath management should lead to

a smaller increase in standard of singing because it repre-

sents only a portion of potential improvement. Although our re-

sults (Figure 2) did not show these trends, our study was not

designed to investigate these issues. Another possibility isthat listeners made an overall assessment that they then justi-

fied, consciously or unconsciously. The greater consistency of

general criteria as used in our study comes at the cost of iden-

tifying and ranking the vocal characteristics that are important

to listeners. Our results suggest that teasing out the components

of vocal assessment might be complicated by an initial general

assessment (solicited or unsolicited) providing a contextual

influence similar to the effect on comparing audio samples

discussed above.

CONCLUSION

In summary, our results question pedagogical assumptions

about direct relationships between breathing behavior, breath-

ing training directives, and perceptible changes in vocal quality.

There is little examination in research or pedagogy of the cir-

cumstances under which training approaches fail or are less

successful, despite the value of such information to understand-

ing and refining methods and practices in any domain. Although

the enormous variability in habitual CWK behavior in singers

has been well documented in research studies, it is yet to be

integrated into pedagogical thinking. Our study begins the im-

portant work of identifying why certain directives work for

some singers and not for others, so that training can be tailored

and streamlined.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the participants and to Dr Helen

Mitchell for her advice on data collection. This study was sup-

ported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant

(DP066559) to Professor Dianna T. Kenny and Dr C. William

Thorpe.

REFERENCES1. Blades-Zeller EL. A Spectrum of Voices: Prominent American Voice

Teachers Discuss the Teaching of Singing. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow; 2003.

2. Chapman JL.Singing and Teaching Singing: A Holistic Approach to Clas-

sical Voice. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2006.

3. Duey PA. Bel Canto in Its Golden Age: A Study of Its Teaching Precepts .New York, NY: Da Capo; 1980.

4. Greene A.The New Voice: How to Sing and Speak Properly . Milwaukee,

WI: Hal Leonard; 1985.

5. Hemsley T. Singing and Imagination: A Human Approach to a Great

Musical Tradition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1998.

6. Hines J. Great Singers on Great Singing. New York, NY: Limelight

Editions; 1982.

7. Miller R. The Structure of Singing:Systemand Art in VocalTechnique. New

York, NY: Schirmer; 1996.

8. Monahan BJ.The Art of Singing: A Compendium of Thoughts on Singing

Published Between 1777 and 1927. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow; 1978.

9. Spillane KW. Breath support directives used by singing teachers: a Delphi

study.NATS J. 1989;45:921. 57.

10. Swank H. Some verbal directives regarding support concepts and their

effects upon resultant sung tone. NATS J. 1984;40:1218.

11. Miller R.Solutions for Singers: Tools for Performers and Teachers. Breath

management. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2004. 14.

12. Hixon TJ, Hoffman C. Chest wall shape in singing. In: Lawrence V, ed.

Transcripts of the Seventh Symposium Care of the Professional Voice,

1978 June. New York, NY: The Voice Foundation; 1979:910. Part 1.

13. Hixon TJ. Respiratory Function in Singing: A Primer for Singers and

Singing Teachers. Tucson, AZ: Redington Brown; 2006.

14. Leanderson R, Sundberg J, Von Euler C. Role of diaphragmatic activity

during singing: a study of transdiaphragmatic pressures. J Appl Physiol.

1987;62:259270.

15. Sundberg J, Leanderson R, Von Euler C. Voice source effects of diaphrag-

matic activity in singing.J Appl Physiol. 1986;14:351357.

16. Sundberg J.The Science of the Singing Voice. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois

University Press; 1987.

17. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Precoda K, Berke GS. Individual differences in

voice quality perception.J Speech Hear Res. 1992;35:512520.

18. Ekholm E, Papagiannis GC, Chagnon FP. Relating objective measurements

to expert evaluation of voice quality in western classical singing: critical

perceptual parameters.J Voice. 1998;12:182196.

19. Mitchell HF, Kenny DT. The effects of open throat technique on long term

average spectra (LTAS) of female classical voices. Logoped Phoniatr

Vocol. 2004;29:99118.

20. Collyer S, Kenny DT, Archer M. The effect of abdominal kinematic direc-tives on respiratory behavior in female classical singing.Logoped Phoniatr

Vocol. 2009;34:100110.

21. Collyer S, ThorpeCW,Callaghan J, Davis PJ.The influence offundamental

frequency and sound pressure level range on breathing patterns in female

classical singing. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008;51:612628.

22. Watson PJ, Hixon TJ. Respiratory kinematics in classical (opera) singers.

J Speech Hear Res. 1985;28:104122.

23. Watson PJ, Hixon TJ, Stathopoulos ET, Sullivan DR. Respiratory kinemat-

ics in female classical singers. J Voice. 1990;4:120128.

24. Thomasson M. Belly-in or belly-out? Effects of inhalatory behavior and

lung volume on voice function in male opera singers. Speech Transm Lab

Q Status Prog Rep. 2003;45:6174 [Internet]. Available at: http://www.

speech.kth.se/prod/publications/files/qpsr/2003/2003_45_1_061-074.pdf,

2003.Accessed May 4, 2009.

25. Iwarsson J. Effects of inhalatory abdominal wall movement on vertical la-ryngeal position during phonation.J Voice. 2001;15:384394.

26. Foulds-Elliott SD, Thorpe CW, Cala SJ, Davis PJ. Respiratory function in

operatic singing: effects of emotional connection.Logoped Phoniatr Vocol.

2000;25:151168.

27. Thorpe CW, Cala SJ, Chapman J, Davis PJ. Patterns of breath support in

projection of the singing voice. J Voice. 2001;15:86104.

28. Griffin B, Woo P, Colton R, Casper J, Brewer D. Physiological characteris-

tics of the supported singing voice: a preliminary study.J Voice. 1995;9:45

56.

29. Sand S, Sundberg J. Reliability of the term support in singing. Logoped

Phoniatr Vocol. 2005;30:5154.

30. Sonninen A, Laukkanen A-M, Karma K, Hurme P. Evaluation of support in

singing. J Voice. 2005;19:223237.

31. Farina A, Lamberto T. Measurements and reproduction of spatial sound

characteristics of auditoria. Acoust Sci Tech. 2005;26:193199.

32. Kempster GB, Kistler DJ, Hillenbrand J. Multidimensionalscaling analysis

of dysphonia in two speaker groups.J Speech Hear Res. 1991;34:534543.

33. Repp B, Crowder RG. Stimulus order effects in vowel discrimination.

J Acoust Soc Am. 1990;88:20802090.

34. Gerratt BR, Kreiman J, Antonanzas-Barroso N, Berke GS. Comparing in-

ternal and external standards in voice quality judgments. J Speech Hear

Res. 1993;36:1420.

35. Shrivastav R, Sapienza CM, Nandur V. Application of psychometric theory

to the measurement of voice quality using rating scales. J Speech Lang

Hear Res. 2005;48:323335.

36. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Kempster GB, Erman A, Berke GS. Perceptual

evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future

research.J Speech Hear Res. 1993;36:2140.

http://www.speech.kth.se/prod/publications/files/qpsr/2003/2003_45_1_061-074.pdfhttp://www.speech.kth.se/prod/publications/files/qpsr/2003/2003_45_1_061-074.pdfhttp://www.speech.kth.se/prod/publications/files/qpsr/2003/2003_45_1_061-074.pdfhttp://www.speech.kth.se/prod/publications/files/qpsr/2003/2003_45_1_061-074.pdf

8/12/2019 12 collyer s

10/10

37. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Ito M. When and why listeners disagree in voice

quality assessment tasks. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;122:23542364.

38. Stanley M, Brooker R, Gilbert R. Examiner perceptions of using criteria in

music performance assessment. Res Stud Music Educ. 2002;18:4656.

39. Wapnick J, Ekholm E. Expert consensus in solo voice performance evalu-

ation.J Voice. 1997;11:429436.

40. Clifford MH, Tsai CL. Regression and time series model selection in small

samples. Biometrika. 1989;76:297307.

41. Hakkesteegt MM, Wieringa MH, Brocaar MP, Mulder PGH, Feenstra L.

The interobserver and test-retest variability of the Dysphonia Severity In-

dex. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2008;60:8690.


Documents

12 collyer s