Pitch Matching Accuracy of Trained Singers,

Untrained Subjects with Talented Singing Voices,

and Untrained Subjects with Nontalented Singing Voices
in Conditions of Varying Feedback
*Christopher Watts, *Jessica Murphy, and Kathryn Barnes-Burroughs
Mobile, Alabama

Summary: At a physiological level, the act of singing involves control and

coordination of several systems involved in the production of sound, including
respiration, phonation, resonance, and afferent systems used to monitor
production. The ability to produce a melodious singing voice (eg, in tune with
accurate pitch) is dependent on control over these motor and sensory systems.
To test this position, trained singers and untrained subjects with and without
expressed singing talent were asked to match pitches of target pure tones. The
ability to match pitch reflected the ability to accurately integrate sensory
perception with motor planning and execution. Pitch-matching accuracy was
measured at the onset of phonation (prephonatory set) before external feedback
could be utilized to adjust the voiced source, during phonation when external
auditory feedback could be utilized, and during phonation when external
auditory feedback was masked. Results revealed trained singers and untrained
subjects with singing talent were no different in their pitch-matching abilities
when measured before or after external feedback could be utilized. The
untrained subjects with singing talent were also significantly more accurate than
the trained singers when external auditory feedback was masked. Both groups
were significantly more accurate than the untrained subjects without singing
talent.
Key Words: Singing talentPitch controlFeedback.

INTRODUCTION
Accepted for publication October 22, 2002.
From the *Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology,
University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama; Department
of Music, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Christopher
R. Watts, Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688. E-mail: cwatts@
usouthal.edu
Journal of Voice, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 185194
2003 The Voice Foundation
0892-1997/2003 $30.000
doi: 10.1016/S0892-1997(03)00023-7

The facility to express a skill in the performance

of a task is often credited to talent. Talent can
be thought of, in a general sense, as a special natural
ability that has the potential to lead to a capacity
for achievement or success. Talent can be identified
for a number of different abilities, including the
ability to sing. Singing involves both physiology
and art. From a physiological perspective, singing
talent can be defined as the special natural ability to
produce musical modulations of the voice where the
185

186

CHRISTOPHER WATTS ET AL

sounds vary over a wide range of frequencies and

are in tune with each other, or where such sounds
are melodious.
In the literature of music research, individuals
with singing talent have been labeled as accurate
singers, whereas those without talent have been
labeled as inaccurate singers, poor pitch singers,
uncertain singers, or monotones.15 Goetze et al6
identified variables that are requisite for accurate
singing, which included the ability to discriminate
between pitches, vocalize over a wide range of
pitches, monitor vocal pitch, and desire to sing. It
is possible that these are the variables inherently
necessary for one to express singing talent. Some
individuals, without any training, will express singing talent, whereas others will not.
In the literature of voice science where physiological and perceptual variables related to the singing
voice are investigated, individuals with and without
voice training are often compared. The groups to
which these two populations, respectively, are assigned, are usually labeled as trained and untrained
singers, singers and nonsingers, or professional singers and nonsingers. As noted above, within the population of untrained singers, some will express singing
talent whereas others will not. Although numerous
studies have found differences between individuals with and without singing training, few studies
have separated untrained subjects into those who
have and do not have expressed singing talent.710
As a result, there is little objective empirical evidence that sheds light on the factors responsible for
expressed singing talent. In addition, there is a lack
of objective data that compare the abilities of trained
singers to those of untrained subjects who possess
a talented singing voice.
The ability to monitor vocal pitch has been identified as one variable related to singing talent.6 Monitoring vocal pitch can be thought of as ongoing
assessment of the accuracy of ones fundamental
frequency (F0) and corresponding adjustments made
toward the goal of producing an intended pitch.11
It has been suggested that the control of F0 is of
paramount importance in singing.12 The control of F0
is accomplished via a combination of laryngeal adjustments and changes in subglottal air pressure. An
innate ability as well as training may be responsible
Journal of Voice, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2003

for singers exhibiting more accurate F0 control

than nonsingers.13
Feedback plays an essential role in the control of
F0. Many studies have found that alterations to the
vocal frequency being externally fed back to the ear
during production of sound result in corresponding
changes to the F0.1418 Through such studies, a great
deal of important information regarding the role of
external feedback on F0 control has been obtained.
Less information is available, however, regarding
the role of internal feedback for the control of F0.
For the purposes of this paper, internal feedback
involved in the control of F0 can include the boneconducted signal to the cochlea (eg, internal pallesthetic feedback) in addition to the articular, myotatic,
and mucosal reflexes stimulated by mechanoreceptors located within the laryngeal joints, muscles, and
subglottic mucosa, respectively.19
In general, studies that have looked at the use of
internal feedback for control of F0 have found that,
when external feedback is not available, the accuracy
of F0 is decreased. When both external (via outer ear)
and internal (via bone conduction) auditory feedback
are not available, studies have found that F0 becomes less stable and subjects are less accurate at
matching target pitches.11,20 Although such evidence
suggests that the use of external feedback and internal feedback results in superior control of F0 compared to the use of internal feedback only, other
reports suggested a role of some importance served
by internal feedback for controlling the frequency
of the voice. For example, laryngeal perturbations
during vocalization and laryngeal anesthesia have
both been found to have an effect on the stability
of F0.21,22
Anecdotal evidence that supports the use of internal feedback for controlling F0 has also been reported. Di Carlo23 described the use of internal
voice sensitivities in opera singers. Internal voice
sensitivities were described as the pallesthetic (vibratory) and kinesthetic (muscular) information that
singers use to control their vocal productions. He
suggested that opera singers used the vibrations in
the bones of the thorax and craniofacial bone structures to assist in vocalizations, and he suggested that
singers may rely on this type of feedback when
external auditory feedback is disrupted due to the
reverberation effects that occur in some music halls.

PITCH-MATCHING ACCURACY
Experienced, trained singers have also anecdotally
reported that, in cases where external feedback was
not available, they have relied on feeling notes to
accurately produce tones.
When producing an intended frequency, such as
during a pitch-matching task, there is a point in time
when vocal production occurs before either external
or internal feedback can be utilized. This occurs
during the first few milliseconds at the beginning
of a vocalization. Leading up to this point in time,
motor planning and programming has occurred that
will govern the activation and position of laryngeal
muscles and structures. The posturing of the laryngeal structures prior to the initiation of vocalization has been referred to in the literature as
prephonatory set or prephonatory tuning. The accuracy of prephonatory tuning is measured in pitchmatching paradigms by calculating the period of
the first measurable (eg, periodic) waveform of the
vocalization, converting this value to the corresponding frequency, and comparing it against a target
frequency. It has been found that singers are more
accurate at prephonatory tuning than are nonsingers.13,24 The ability to accurately position the structures related to vocalization for production of an
intended frequency may be another variable related
to singing talent.
A review of the literature has identified a lack
of evidence related to objective measures of both
physiological and perceptual abilities associated
with vocal control in untrained subjects with and
without singing talent. The purpose of this study was
to assess the abilities of these two groups, along
with trained singers, to control F0 during a pitchmatching task, and to investigate whether these abilities were affected differentially when feedback was
and was not available. Specific research questions
included: (1) Are untrained subjects with expressed
singing talent able to utilize external auditory
feedback to more accurately match pitch when compared to untrained subjects without expressed singing talent and trained singers? (2) Are untrained
subjects with expressed singing talent able to utilize
internal feedback to more accurately match pitch
when compared to untrained subjects without expressed singing talent and trained singers? (3) Are
trained subjects able to pretune their vocal mechanism to more accurately match pitch when compared

187

to untrained subjects without expressed singing

talent and trained singers?
METHODS
Participants
Female volunteers from the student body of the
University of South Alabama and the local community were recruited. Fifteen subjects were assigned
to three groups of five. The first group consisted of
five female volunteers who were trained singers with
a minimum of 3 years vocal training with a professional voice teacher. This group was labeled the
trained singers (TS). The next group consisted
of five female volunteers who had no history of
professional, individualized vocal training but were
identified by professional voice teachers as exhibiting expressed singing talent. This group was labeled the untrained talented subjects (UTS). The
third group consisted of five female volunteers who
had no history of vocal training and were identified
by professional voice teachers as not exhibiting
expressed singing talent. This group was labeled
the nontalented subjects (NTS). The participants
ranged in ages from 19 to 30 years, with a mean
age of 23 years. In addition, the trained singers
had a range of 3 to 6.5 years (mean of 5 years)
of professional voice lessons. All participants had
normal hearing at 15-dB HL for 500 through 8000
Hz, no history of chronic vocal pathology, no previous voice therapy, no history of drug or alcohol
abuse, no history of smoking, and no current allergies or voice problems at the time of testing.
Instrumentation
The Kay Elemetrics Computerized Speech Lab
(CSL) (Kay Elemetrics, Lincoln Park, NJ) was used
as a signal generation and signal acquisition device.
For auditory stimuli, the tone generator application
of the CSL was used to generate periodic waveforms
and noise stimuli. These stimuli were played through
the CSL output via both Optimus Pro 40 circum
aural headphones and a Fostex 6301B amplified
loudspeaker (Fostex America, Anaheim, CA). For
signal acquisition (singers voices), the CSL input
channels were used. All speakers were wearing a
head-mounted AKG Acoustics microphone positioned at a constant microphone-to-mouth distance
Journal of Voice, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2003

188

CHRISTOPHER WATTS ET AL

of 1 inch, placed off-center at the left corner of

the mouth. All signals captured via the CSL were
digitized at 44.1 KHz. Signals from the microphone were routed to the Kay Elemetrics external
CSL hardware to measure fundamental frequency
range (via Kay Elemetrics Voice Range Profile
[VRP] software) and to capture vocalizations. An
Alesis Masterlink hard-disk/CD recorder was incorporated for storing singing samples from each subject, and for playing tone stimuli. All participants
were tested in a double-walled sound booth. An
Extech sound level meter (SLM- model 407750)
was used for visual feedback to assist subjects in
controlling the intensity of their vocal output.
Stimuli
Two types of stimuli, pure tone waveforms with
and without additional aperiodic white noise, were
used during pitch-matching activities. In order to
get a sampling of pitch-matching abilities at more
than one frequency, pure tones within 30% to 50%
of each subjects frequency range were generated.
Stimuli consisting of 4-second pure tones were
used during the external feedback condition and
called the external tones. Also, stimuli consisting
of the same pure tones followed immediately by 8
seconds of white noise were used during the internal
feedback condition and called the internal tones.
Each participant was presented with 30 external
tones, presented randomly in one testing condition,
and 30 internal tones, presented randomly in a
second testing condition, so that a total of 60 tones
were presented after completion of testing.
Procedures
Testing consisted of two separate sessions. During
the first session, each participant read and signed a
consent form, completed a questionnaire, and underwent audiometric screening to ensure hearing was
within the required limits for the study. They were
then recorded singing the first stanza of America
the Beautiful. Before recording, all participants
were given a minimum of 5 minutes for vocal warmup, including time to practice the stimulus song.
Every participant reported that they were familiar
with the song. If any participant was unfamiliar with
tasks used for vocal warm-up, they were given instruction. After warm-up, participants were instructed
Journal of Voice, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2003

to sing the song using their best singing voice. These

renditions took place in a double-walled sound booth
with the subject in isolation, and they were recorded
digitally via a direct line input from the headmounted microphone. These samples were used to
place each participant into her respective group
based on the judgments of the professional voice
teachers (see below). After singing, physiological
fundamental frequency ranges (FFR) were acquired
using the head-mounted microphone and VRP program with an automatic procedure. The automatic
procedure used in this study has been described in
detail by Pabon and Plomp.25
In order to assign participants into an experimental group, recordings of the stimulus songs were
played to two trained professional teachers of singing, both of whom were faculty members of the
University of South Alabama School of Music. Both
judges had over 10 years of professional experience
and a graduate-level degree in voice. Each judge listened to the recordings independently. The identities of the singers were not disclosed to the judges.
The judges were provided the singing samples on
a compact disk and asked to judge whether the
person singing expressed natural singing talent.
Judgments were based on the intonation and quality
of their voice during singing. Only subjects who
were rated by both judges as either having or not
having natural singing talent were assigned to one
of the two groups. Any subject who was rated differently between the two judges was excluded from
the study. A third professional voice teacher with
similar experience independently judged 5 of the
untrained participants (3 that were judged as UTS
and two judged as NTS) for reliability purposes.
Agreement between this and the prior judges was
100%.
During the second testing session, the subjects
were seated in the double-walled sound booth wearing a head-mounted microphone. The microphone
had a direct line input into the CSL. Subjects
were tested in two different conditions, called the
external feedback condition and the internal feedback condition. The external feedback condition
consisted of the subjects matching the pitch of the
external tones presented via loudspeaker at 70-dB
SPL. The internal feedback condition consisted of
the subjects matching the pitch of the pure tone

PITCH-MATCHING ACCURACY
segments of the internal tones while masking
noise played through the headphones. The pure tone
segments of the internal tones were presented 70dB SPL and followed by the white noise at a level
of 85-dB SPL. The purpose of the white noise was
to mask the external auditory sidetone, so that the
subjects had to rely on other feedback mechanisms,
such as proprioceptive feedback, for matching the
pitch of the target tones.
To control for possible effects of the masking
noise on subsequent use of auditory feedback for
F0 control, the external feedback condition was
always presented first. In this condition, subjects
were presented with 30 external tones, which were
ordered randomly. Subjects were instructed to match
the pitch of the tone immediately after the presentation of the target ended. Subjects viewed the SLM
during the matching task to keep the intensity of
their acoustic response between 65- and 70-dB SPL,
in order to control for the effects of vocal intensity on
fundamental frequency. Acoustic response signals
were captured digitally using the CSL. The experimenter started the recording of each subjects response 1 second prior to vocalization, so that the
initiation of phonation could be clearly delineated
when analyzing the acoustic signals.
During the internal feedback condition, subjects
wore both the head-mounted microphone and circumaural headphones. Subjects were presented with
30 randomly ordered internal tones through the
headphones. Subjects were instructed to match the
pitch of the tone immediately after the pure-tone segment of the target ended, and during the presentation
of white noise through the headphones, using the
SLM to keep the intensity of their acoustic
response between 65- and 70-dB SPL. Acoustic responses were captured and stored with the same
method as that in the external condition.
Analysis
Three dependent variables were measured: pitchmatching accuracy with prephonatory set, pitchmatching accuracy with external feedback, and
pitch-matching accuracy with internal feedback.
The prephonatory set was measured from the 30
responses of each subject during the external feedback condition. This measure could have been taken

189

from either of the experimental test conditions. However, to control for possible effects of noise exposure
on the prephonatory set, the measure was acquired
from the responses in the external feedback condition.
Pitch-matching abilities using the prephonatory
set were analyzed for each response by converting
the period of the first measurable waveform into a
corresponding frequency. This value was then subtracted from the frequency of the target tone, so that
a difference score was obtained for each response.
This difference score reflected pitch-matching accuracy. A total of 30 difference scores were calculated
for each subject in this measurement condition.
Pitch-matching abilities in the external feedback and
internal feedback conditions were analyzed by measuring the period of the waveforms located 2 seconds
into the response. Difference scores were calculated
in the same manner as those for the prephonatory set.
Statistical analysis was completed using a
two-way (group condition) analysis of variance
(ANOVA) with repeated measures applied to the data
for pitch-matching accuracy with the prephonatory
set, external feedback, and internal feedback. Any
significant interaction effects were further investigated using separate one-way ANOVAs. Criterion
for significance was set at the 0.05 levels. Intrameasurer reliability was calculated by having the experimenter remeasure 15% of the waveforms. A second
trained experimenter randomly remeasured 15% of
the waveforms to assess intermeasurer reliability.
The measurement values, in frequency, were compared using a Pearson product-moment correlation.
Both intrameasurer (r 0.99) and intermeasurer reliability (r 0.98) were high, and the comparison
revealed a significant correlation for both (p 0.01).
RESULTS
The pitch-matching accuracy of the three groups
using the prephonatory set, external feedback, and
internal feedback is displayed in Figure 1. As can
be seen, the UTS participants, as a group, always
performed better than both the TS and NTS
groups. Average difference scores for the UTS group
were 19 Hz, 8 Hz, and 6 Hz across those three
measurement conditions, respectively, whereas
those of the TS group were 24 Hz, 15 Hz, and 17
Journal of Voice, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2003

190

CHRISTOPHER WATTS ET AL

FIGURE 1. Average pitch-matching accuracy of the trained, untrained talented, and untrained
nontalented groups when using prephonatory set, external feedback, and internal feedback.

Hz, respectively, and for the NTS group 62 Hz,

53 Hz, and 45 Hz, respectively. It can also be seen
that the TS group was always more accurate than the
NTS group.
Across conditions, both the UTS and NTS groups
were least accurate in matching pitch when measured at the prephonatory set, and most accurate
when using internal feedback. The TS differed from
this trend only in that they were more accurate when
using external feedback compared to when they were
using internal feedback.
Figures 2 to 4 show box plots of pitch-matching
accuracy for each group in the three measurement
conditions. These plots are of interest as they show
that the UTS group was not only more accurate at
matching pitch than the TS in all conditions, but also
was less variable within the group, especially in
the two conditions where feedback could have been
utilized. The NTS group was always more variable
with greater spread around the mean compared with
the other two groups.
Journal of Voice, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2003

A two-way (group condition) ANOVA with repeated measures was applied to the pitch-matching
data. Results revealed a significant main effect for
condition (F 70.8, p 0.01) and group (F 98.7,
p 0.01), with a significant interaction effect
(F 5.1, p 0.01). Because of the interaction,
group means were compared in each measurement
condition using three separate one-way ANOVAs.
Results of the one-way ANOVAs revealed a significant effect for group when using the prephonatory set (F 76.6, p 0.01), external feedback
(F 99.6, p 0.01), and internal feedback (F 69.7,
p 0.01). Posthoc testing utilizing a Scheffe test
revealed that when using the prephonatory set and
external feedback, the TS and UTS groups were
significantly more accurate at matching pitch than
was the NTS group (p 0.01 and p 0.01, respectively), but not different from each other. When using
internal feedback, the UTS group was significantly
more accurate than were the TS group (p 0.01)
and the NTS group (p 0.01). Additionally, the TS

PITCH-MATCHING ACCURACY

191

FIGURE 2. Box plot of pitch-matching accuracy using prephonatory set for the
trained, untrained talented, and untrained nontalented groups.

group was significantly more accurate than was the

NTS group (p 0.01).

DISCUSSION
This study investigated the pitch-matching abilities of trained singers (TS), untrained subjects with
expressed singing talent (UTS), and untrained subjects without expressed singing talent (NTS). These
abilities were tested when using prephonatory set,
external feedback, and internal feedback. A small
sample size was utilized for group comparisons, and
as such, any generalizations based on the results
should be made with caution. Analysis of the data
revealed a number of interesting findings. One was
that the TS and UTS groups demonstrated significantly greater pitch-matching accuracy in all measured conditions compared to the NTS group.
Additionally, the UTS group was significantly more
accurate than was the TS group when they had to
rely on internal feedback.
The UTS group could match pitch equally as well
as the TS group when measured at the initial onset

of phonation and when utilizing external feedback.

The ability to match pitch accurately when using external feedback supports the idea, as Goetze et al.6
suggested, that accurate monitoring of pitch is a
factor related to singing talent. This might explain
why the TS and UTS groups did not differ in a
pitch-matching task where external feedback was
available. However, Goetze et als suggestion might
be expanded, based on the results from measuring
the prephonatory set, to include the ability to both
accurately perceive the pitch of a tone and coordinate
that perception with the motor planning, programming, and execution needed to reproduce it accurately at the onset of phonation. This ability would
result in less reliance on the external signal for
feedback purposes, which would be of value in singing, as room acoustics can greatly affect the auditory
signal that is fed back into the ears. It is suggested
by the authors that natural singing talent is related, at
least in part, to this ability to accurately monitor
pitch and coordinate perception with motor systems
for reproduction of a pitch at the very beginning
of phonation.
Journal of Voice, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2003

192

CHRISTOPHER WATTS ET AL

FIGURE 3. Box plot of pitch-matching accuracy using external feedback for the
trained, untrained talented, and untrained nontalented groups.

Di Carlo23 suggested that opera singers are able

to rely heavily on their internal voice sensitivities,
which are the vibratory and muscular feedback available to the person during singing. She concluded
that although auditory feedback plays a role in pitch
accuracy, singers judge the quality of their vocalizations by utilizing ongoing assessment of proprioceptive feedback. If this is true, this ability may come
from many years of training or practice. The trained
subjects in this study had a mean of 5 years of
professional voice training. However, they were not
as accurate at matching pitch compared to the UTS
group when external feedback was not available.
Interestingly, the raw data indicated that the TS subjects, within the group, were less accurate in the
internal feedback condition compared to the other
two conditions, whereas both the UTS and NTS
groups were more accurate in this condition.
One possible explanation for this finding is that
during early voice training, emphasis may be placed
on training the ear to monitor the sound of the voice.
The method of early voice training varies from
Journal of Voice, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2003

teacher to teacher, and some may not focus on

ear training at all. However, anecdotal reports seem
to indicate that training the ear to the auditory sidetone is an important element of early voice training
utilized by some teachers of singing. This emphasis
could then possibly result in learning to utilize external feedback of the sidetone while deemphasizing
internal information as a consequence. With more
advanced voice training and experience, the utilization of internal feedback may increase. More
detailed experimental designs are required to accurately test this theory.
The finding that there was no difference in pitchmatching abilities between untrained singers with
expressed singing talent and trained singers when
using the prephonatory set or external feedback is
important as it differs somewhat from findings of
previous investigations that have compared trained
and untrained individuals. Previous studies have
found differences for pitch-matching accuracy
between trained and untrained subjects.13,26 However, these and most other studies that have compared abilities related to singing in trained and

PITCH-MATCHING ACCURACY

193

FIGURE 4. Box plot of pitch-matching accuracy using internal feedback for the
trained, untrained talented, and untrained nontalented groups.

untrained subjects have not factored out the abilities

of subjects in the untrained groups who have singing
talent. As a result, findings from these previous
investigations may not represent the abilities of all
untrained singers, specifically those who express
singing talent.
The present investigation found that, when matching pitch either at the onset of phonation or when
using external feedback, untrained subjects with expressed singing talent are equally as accurate as
trained singers. This gives credence to the idea that
the ability to match pitch accurately is a prerequisite
for singing talent. There may also be additional abilities related to voice production that are similar in
trained singers and untrained subjects with expressed singing talent. This idea was in some way
supported by Holliens27 view that a golden voice
was a product of both innate talent and training. It
is most often the case that a few of those untrained
subjects with expressed singing talent are the same
individuals who go on to seek further training, via
professional instruction, to expand and refine their
singing skills for professional development.

The findings from this investigation point to a

need for more research that investigates the substrates of expressed singing talent. Such investigations could provide objective evidence to answer the
question, why can some people, without training,
produce a good singing voice while some cannot?
To date, anecdotal evidence exists to answer this
question. Larger empirical studies are needed, however, to substantiate opinions and ideas related to
those answers.

REFERENCES
1. Yarbrough C, Green G, Benson W, Bowers J. Inaccurate
singers: An exploratory study of variables affecting pitchmatching. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music
Education. 1991;105:2333.
2. Davies A, Roberts E. Poor pitch singing: A survey of its
incidence in school children. Psychol Music. 1981;3:2436.
3. Flowers P, Dunne-Sousa D. Pitch-pattern accuracy, tonality,
and vocal range in preschool childrens singing. J Res Music
Educ. 1990;38:102114.
4. Price H. Interval matching by undergraduate nonmusic
majors. J Res Music Educ. 2000;48:360372.
Journal of Voice, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2003

194

CHRISTOPHER WATTS ET AL

5. Joyner D. The monotone problem. J Res Music Educ. 1969;

17:115124.
6. Goetze M, Cooper N, Brown C. Recent research on singing
in the general music classroom. Bull Council Res Music
Educ. 1990;104:1637.
7. Brown W, Rothman H, Sapienza C. Perceptual and acoustic study of professional trained versus untrained voices.
J Voice. 2000;3:301309.
8. Sulter A, Schutte H, Miller D. Differences in phonetogram
features between male and female subjects with and without
vocal training. J Voice. 1995;9:363377.
9. Akerlund L, Gamming P. Average loudness level, mean
fundamental frequency, and subglottal pressure: comparison between female singers and nonsingers. J Voice. 1994;
8:263270.
10. Sundberg J. Maximum speed of pitch changes in singers
and untrained subjects. J Phonet. 1979;7:7179.
11. Elliott L, Niemoeller A. The role of hearing in controlling
voice fundamental frequency. Int Audiol. 1970;9:4752.
12. Titze I. Principles of Voice Production. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall; 1994:191217.
13. Murry T. Pitch-matching accuracy in singers and nonsingers. J Voice. 1990;4:317321.
14. Larson C, Burnett T, Kiran S, Hain T. Effects of pitch-shift
onset velocity on voice FO responses. J Acoust Soc Am.
2000;107:559564.
15. Burnett T, Senner J, Larson C. Voice FO responses to pitchshifted auditory feedback: a preliminary study. J Voice.
1997;11:202211.
16. Burnett T, Freedland M, Larson C, Hain T. Voice FO responses to manipulations in pitch feedback. J Acoust Soc
Am. 1998;103:31533161.

Journal of Voice, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2003

17. Laukkanen A. Artificial pitch changing in auditory feedback

as a possible method in voice training and therapy. Folia
Phoniatrica et Logopaedica. 1994;46:8696.
18. Elman J. Effects of frequency-shifted feedback on the pitch
of vocal productions. J Acoust Soc Am. 1981;70:4551.
19. Wyke B. Laryngeal neuromuscular control in singing. Folia
Phoniatrica et Logopaedica. 1974;26:295306.
20. Ward W, Burns E. Singing without auditory feedback. J
Res Singing. 1978;1:2444.
21. Sapir S, Baker K, Larson C, Ramig L. Short-latency
changes in Fo and neck surface EMG induced by mechanical perturbations of the larynx during sustained vowel phonation. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43:268276.
22. Sorensen D, Horii Y, Leonard R. Effects of laryngeal topical
anesthesia on voice fundamental frequency perturbation. J
Speech Hear Res. 1980;23:274283.
23. Di Carlo N. Internal voice sensitivities in opera singers.
Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica. 1994;46:7985.
24. Leonard R, Ringel R. Vocal shadowing under conditions
of normal and altered laryngeal sensation. J Speech Hear
Res. 1979;22:794817.
25. Pabon J, Plomp R. Automatic phonetogram recording
supplemented with acoustical voice-quality parameters. J
Speech Hear Res. 1988;31:710722.
26. Michel J, Dawes P. Accuracy of pre-phonatory laryngeal
adjustments. In: Lawrence V, ed. Transcripts of the seventh
symposium on care of the professional voice. New York:
The Voice Foundation; 1978:8587.
27. Hollien H. That golden voicetalent or training? J Voice.
1993;7:195205.