Respiratory and Laryngeal Function in Teachers: Pre- and Postvocal Loading Challenge

Mitigating the Effects of Acute Vocal Exertion in Individuals With Vocal Fatigue

“…F0 range was utilized as emerging evidence suggests this measure correlates with overall vocal health 46 . There is a paucity of respiratory kinematic data following vocal exertion, but LVI and LVT appear most useful in this context 12,13 . Syllables spoken per breath group was included to allow for interpretation of lung volume findings.…”

“…voice use that compromises optimal laryngeal function) results in chronic vocal fatigue, putting an individual at risk for voice disorders. 11 Although vocal exertion may induce changes in respiratory kinematics, 12,13 vocal effort, [14][15][16] aerodynamic, [17][18][19] and acoustic voice measures, [20][21][22] virtually all work has focused on vocally healthy individuals. 23 As such, this study sought to quantify and mitigate the effects of vocal exertion in individuals reporting frequent vocal fatigue.…”

“…The Vocal Fatigue Index (VFI) was used to identify those experiencing frequent vocal fatigue. 41,42 Laryngeal and respiratory measures were selected based on previous sensitivity to exertioninduced voice changes 13,23 and mirrored those used in a companion paper examining healthy speakers. 43 The second objective was to compare the restorative effects of SOVTE and vocal rest.…”

The Accuracy of Respiratory Calibration Methods for Estimating Lung Volume During Speech Breathing: A Comparison of Four Methods Across Three Adult Cohorts

“…Nevertheless, these correction methods-which were developed and validated in young healthy adults-have been consistently applied to patient populations with the assumption that resulting values will be of the same estimation accuracy. Although there is no gold standard respiratory kinematic calibration method, the least squares method is the most common mathematical technique used to calculate the RC and AB correction factors across different populations, including those with PD (Darling-White & Huber & Darling, 2011;Stathopoulos et al, 2014), postlaryngectomy patients with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Bohnenkamp, Forrest, Klaben, & Stager, 2011, 2012, healthy young adults during modulations of vocal effort and breathiness (Heller Murray, Michener, Enflo, Cler, & Stepp, 2018;McKenna, Llico, Mehta, Perkell, & Stepp, 2017), and healthy adults of all ages during fatigue paradigms (Herndon, Sundarrajan, Sivasankar, & Huber, 2017;. Because these studies are critical for identifying physiological targets for speech breathing intervention, the accuracy of the calibration becomes essential to the interpretation of the results and the implications for treatment.…”

The Relationship Between Physiological Mechanisms and the Self-Perception of Vocal Effort

“…Despite this knowledge, there is currently no universally accepted scale to subjectively quantify vocal effort, leading to ambiguity in choosing the correct scale for research and clinical purposes. To date, self-perceptual rating scales of vocal effort include a simple 0-10 equal interval scale (Hunter & Titze, 2009;McCabe & Titze, 2002), direct magnitude estimation (Dietrich & Abbott, 2012;Sivasankar & Fisher, 2002;Verdolini et al, 1994;Verdolini-Marston, Burke, Lessac, Glaze, & Caldwell, 1995), and the Borg Category Ratio 10 (Herndon, Sundarrajan, Sivasankar, & Huber, 2017;Steinhauer, Grayhack, Smiley-Oyen, Shaiman, & McNeil, 2004;van Mersbergen et al, 2008). The Borg Category Ratio 10 is derived from a scale that was originally developed in the exercise physiology literature to characterize physical exertion (Borg, 1982;Neely, Ljunggren, Sylven, & Borg, 1992;Noble, Borg, Jacobs, Ceci, & Kaiser, 1983) and is undergoing psychometric evaluation as a perceptual measure of vocal effort (Baldner et al, 2015;van Leer & van Mersbergen, 2017).…”