The effects of articulation on the perceived loudness of the projected voice

63 Pages·2017·1.46 MB·English

University of Iowa
Iowa Research Online
Theses and Dissertations
Spring 2013
The effects of articulation on the perceived
loudness of the projected voice
Brett Raymond Myers
University of Iowa
Copyright 2013 Brett Raymond Myers
This thesis is available at Iowa Research Online: https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/2590
Recommended Citation
Myers, Brett Raymond. "The effects of articulation on the perceived loudness of the projected voice." MA (Master of Arts) thesis,
University of Iowa, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.b47omppq
Follow this and additional works at:https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd
Part of theSpeech Pathology and Audiology Commons
THE EFFECTS OF ARTICULATION ON THE PERCEIVED LOUDNESS
OF THE PROJECTED VOICE

by
Brett Raymond Myers

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the Master of Arts
degree in Speech Pathology and Audiology
in the Graduate College of
The University of Iowa

May 2013

Thesis Supervisor: Associate Professor Eileen Finnegan
Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

MASTER’S THESIS

This is to certify that Master’s thesis of
Brett Raymond Myers
has been approved by the Examining Committee for the thesis requirement
for the Master of Arts degree in Speech Pathology and Audiology at the May
2013 graduation.

Thesis Committee:
Eileen Finnegan, Thesis Supervisor

Michael Karnell

Ann Fennell
If vowels are a river and consonants are the banks, it is necessary to reinforce the
latter lest there be floods.
S. M. Volkonski
The Expressive Word

Think what you’re dealing with. The majesty and grandeur of the English
language… its extraordinary, imaginative, and musical mixture of sounds.
G. B. Shaw
Pygmalion

i
 i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have been blessed to have the constant support of mentors and friends
throughout the progress of my Master’s thesis. I am highly grateful for Dr. Eileen
Finnegan for her guidance, encouragement, and dependability throughout this
research. I also want to express warm thanks to Ann Fennell and Dr. Michael
Karnell for serving on my research committee, and for being instrumental in my
education at the University of Iowa. I would like to thank Dr. Ingo Titze and Vicki
Lewis for sharing their time and knowledge to contribute to my educational
development. I must thank my friends Darcey Hull, Erica Jones, Adam Lloyd, and
Lauren Richman for always allowing me to bounce ideas off of them. I would like to
give thanks to Dr. Karla McGregor, Dr. Tim Arbisi-Kelm, and Nichole Eden for
allowing me to use their Word Learning Laboratory, and to Dr. Rick Arenas for his
impeccable assistance with computer programming. Furthermore, I would like to
acknowledge all of the faculty and staff of the Department of Communication
Sciences and Disorders at the University of Iowa for their excellence in scholarship
and community. Lastly, I would like to thank my parents, Doug and Sue Myers, for
endlessly supporting and encouraging me in my endeavors. Thanks to all for this
fulfilling and rewarding experience.

ii
 i
ABSTRACT
Actors often receive training to develop effective strategies for using the voice
on stage. Arthur Lessac developed a training approach that concentrated on three
energies: structural action, tonal action, and consonant action. Together, these
energies help to create a more resonant voice, which is characterized by a fuller
sound that carries well over noise and distance. In Lessac-Based Resonant Voice
Therapy, voice clinicians help clients achieve a resonant voice through structural
posturing and awareness of tonal changes. However, LBRVT does not include the
third component of Lessac’s approach: consonant action. This study examines the
effect that increased consonant energy has on the speaking voice—particularly
regarding loudness. Audio samples were collected from eight actor participants who
read a monologue using three distinct styles: normal articulation, poor articulation
(elicited using a bite block), and over-articulation (elicited using a Lessac-based
training intervention). Participants learned about the “consonant orchestra,”
practiced producing each sound in a consonant cluster word list, and practiced
linking the consonants in short phrases. Twenty graduate students of speech-
language pathology listened to speech samples from the different conditions, and
made comparative judgments regarding articulation, loudness, and projection.
Group results showed that the over-articulation condition was selected as having
the greatest articulation, loudness, and projection in comparison to the other
conditions, although vocal intensity (dB SPL) was not statistically different. These
iv
findings indicate that articulation treatment may be beneficial for increasing
perceived vocal loudness.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1

1.1 Vocal Loudness and Articulation ................................................. 1
1.2 Literature Review ......................................................................... 4
1.2.1 Loudness and Articulation ................................................. 4
1.2.2 Loudness and Dysarthric Speech ....................................... 7
1.2.3 Articulation for Impaired Listeners ................................. 11
1.2.4 Loudness and Actors ......................................................... 13
2. METHODS ........................................................................................ 18

2.1 Sample Collection ....................................................................... 18
2.1.1 Participants ....................................................................... 18
2.1.2 Speech Tasks ..................................................................... 18
2.1.3 Intervention ....................................................................... 20
2.1.4 Recording Procedures ....................................................... 24
2.2 Data Analysis ............................................................................. 25
2.2.1 Acoustic Analysis .............................................................. 25
2.2.2 Perceptual Analysis .......................................................... 26
3. RESULTS .......................................................................................... 28

3.1 Acoustic Findings ....................................................................... 28
3.2 Perceptual Findings ................................................................... 26
3.3 Acoustic vs. Perceptual Findings ............................................... 30
3.4 Inter-Rater Reliability ................................................................ 32
4. DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 42

APPENDIX A. PERFORMANCE MONOLOGUE ........................................... 47

APPENDIX B. LESSAC’S CONSONANT ORCHESTRA ................................ 48

APPENDIX C. OVER-ARTICULATION PRACTICE LISTS .......................... 49
REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 50

v
 i
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Overall percentage that a condition was selected as having better
articulation, loudness, or projection than its paired sample. ......... 34

vi
 i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. Mean intensity (dB) levels for each speaker across articulation
conditions. ......................................................................................... 35
2. Maximum intensity (dB) levels for each speaker across articulation
conditions. ......................................................................................... 35
3. Mean sentence duration (in seconds) for each speaker across
articulation conditions. .................................................................... 36
4. Percentage that judges selected each condition as having better
articulation than its paired stimulus for each speaker. ................. 36
5. Percentage that judges selected each condition as being louder than
its paired stimulus for each speaker. .............................................. 37
6. Percentage that judges selected each condition as having better
projection than its paired stimulus for each speaker. .................... 37
7. Percentage that judges selected each condition as having better
articulation than its paired stimulus. Judges are displayed on the x-
axis, and the data points represent ratings across speakers. ........ 38
8. Percentage that judges selected each condition as being louder than
its paired stimulus. Judges are displayed on the x-axis, and the data
points represent ratings across speakers. ....................................... 38
9. Percentage that judges selected each condition as having better
projection than its paired stimulus. Judges are displayed on the x-
axis, and the data points represent ratings across speakers. ........ 39
10. Percentage that judges selected each condition as having better
articulation than its paired stimulus for each of the five presented
sentences. .......................................................................................... 39
11. Percentage that judges selected each condition as being louder than
its paired stimulus for each of the five presented sentences. ........ 40
12. Percentage that judges selected each condition as having better
projection than its paired stimulus for each of the five presented
sentences. .......................................................................................... 40
13. Comparison of acoustic findings with perceptual findings. Acoustic
loudness is shown as the percentage that the mean loudness (in dB)
of each condition was greater than that of its paired stimulus.
Perceived loudness is represented by the percentage that judges
selected each condition as sounding louder than its paired stimulus
........................................................................................................... 41
vi
 ii