Abstract Effects of Training in Vocalises on Singing

ABSTRACT

EFFECTS OF TRAINING IN VOCALISES ON SINGING PERFORMANCE

By Ruchita Rao

Motor learning literature demonstrates that training in a specific motor movement can improve performance for that movement and other similar tasks. Vocalises are exercises used in vocal training to improve quality and precision in singing performance. It was hypothesized that a short-term training program using a specific vocalise would improve singing performance on the practiced vocalise and vocalises of similar and greater complexity. Twelve female sopranos were divided into two groups, only one of which completed the short-term vocalises training program. Performance was assessed for pitch and rhythm accuracy. Results indicated that the group that completed the short-term training program did not significantly improve their pitch and rhythm accuracy on the three vocalises compared to the group that did not complete the training. Also, no carryover effect was seen after a 1-week rest-period for either group. This study demonstrates that short-term training in vocalises may not improve motor performance.

Effects of Training in Vocalises on Singing Performance

A Thesis

Submitted to the

Faculty of Miami University

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Masters of Arts

Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology

Ruchita Rao

Miami University

Oxford, Ohio

2005

Advisor______Susan E. Baker, Ph.D.

Reader______Barbara Weinrich, Ph.D.

Reader______Wendy LeBorgne, Ph.D.

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: Introduction...... ……………………………………………...... 1 Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………………….6 Research Questions………………………………………………………………………..6 CHAPTER 2: Review of the Literature...... ……………………………………………..8 Review of the Anatomy and Physiology of the Larynx…………………………………....8 Neural Control of the Laryngeal Mechanism……………………………………………10 Motor Learning…………………………………………………………………………..12 Theories of Motor Learning……………………………………………………...12 Three-stage model...... 13 Closed-loop theory...... 13 Schema theory...... 14 Evidence of Motor Learning……………………………………………………..14 Transfer of Learning……………………………………………………………..15 Pre-practice and Practice Conditions…………………………………………...17 The Underlying Rationale for Vocalises…………………………………………………20 Vocal Pedagogy………………………………………………………………………….21 History……………………………………………………………………………21 Literature in Vocal Exercises…………………………………………………….24 Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………………..26 Research Hypothesis……………………………………………………………..27 Null Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………..28 CHAPTER 3: Methods……………………………………………………………………...... 29 Participants……………………………………………………………………………....29 Sight-Singing Abilities...... 30 Laryngeal Screening……………………………………………………………………..31 Experimental Procedure………………………………………………………………....31 Experimental Group Protocol……………………………………………………………31 Pre-training Phase...... …...31

ii Training Phase…………………………………………………………………...38 Post-training Phase…………………………………………………………...... 39 Control Group Protocol…………………………………………………………….…....39 One Week Post-training………………………………………………………………….39 Data Measurement……………………………………………………………………….39 Statistical Analysis……………………………………………………………………….40 CHAPTER 4: Results...... …………………………………………………………………...... 41 Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………………………..41 Inferential Statistics……………………………………………………………………...46 Inter-rater Reliability…………………………………………………………….46 Intra-rater Reliability…………………………………………………………….47 Secondary Analysis………………………………………………………………49 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………….50 Implications of the Present Study……………………………………………………...... 52 Perceptual Judgment and Inter/Intra-rater Reliability……………………………….....53 Limitations……………………………………………………………………………….55 Future Directions………………………………………………………………………...56 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….58 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………..59 APPENDICES...... 63 Appendix A Health Questionnaire...... 63 Appendix B Pitch Accuracy Ratings from Raters for Individual Participants...... 64 Appendix C Rhythm Accuracy Ratings from Raters for Individual Participants...... 70

iii LIST OF TABLES

1. Vocal Training Range (in months) for the Experimental and Control Groups...... 29 2. Distribution of Sight-Singing Courses and Self-Rating Score...... 30 3. Pitch Accuracy Averages on a 100 pt Visual Analog Scale...... 41 4. Rhythm Accuracy Averages on a 100 pt Visual Analog Scale...... 44 5. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation between the Three Expert Raters for Pitch Accuracy...... 46 6. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation between the Three Expert Raters for Rhythm Accuracy...... 47 7. Intra-rater Reliability for Pitch and Rhythm Accuracy...... 48

iv LIST OF FIGURES

1. Example of a Vocalise...... 2 2. Experimental Group Protocol with Training in Practice Vocalise...... 32 3. Control Group Protocol with no Training in Practice Vocalise...... 33 4. Practice Vocalise...... 34 5. Simple Vocalise...... 35 6. Complex Vocalise...... 36 7. Mean Pitch Accuracy Scores for the Practice Vocalise...... 42 8. Mean Pitch Accuracy Scores for the Simple Vocalise...... 43 9. Mean Pitch Accuracy Scores for the Complex Vocalise...... 43 10. Mean Rhythm Accuracy Scores for the Practice Vocalise...... 45 11. Mean Rhythm Accuracy Scores for the Simple Vocalise...... 45 12. Mean Rhythm Accuracy Scores for the Complex Vocalise...... 46

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Susan Baker, my committee chairperson, for her guidance and support. Dr. Baker constantly encouraged me at times when we could barely see the “light” at the end of the tunnel. Through all the ups and downs in this past year, thank you for believing in me and helping me get through this project so wonderfully. I would also like to thank my committee member, Dr. Barabara Weinrich for her insights and ideas to make this a better study. A special thank you to Dr. Wendy LeBorgne, who also served as my committee member and whose inputs have been instrumental to this project. My heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Edward LeBorgne, who created the music CDs for this project. This help was truly appreciated. I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to Ms. Alison Acord, a voice instructor at Miami University, who was instrumental in recruiting participants for the study. I would also like to acknowledgment the cooperation and enthusiasm of all the participants from the Department of Music at Miami University. To my friends, who patiently sat through all my bickering and all the excitement through these past two years, thank you for standing by me. Finally and most importantly, to my parents and sister, who have been incredibly supportive and encouraging, thank you for all your love and undying belief in me. You have kept me strong. This one is for you ma and papa!

CHAPTER 1 Introduction Most activities of daily living involve a high level of motor planning and execution. Tasks, such as riding a bicycle, driving a car, or even searching the internet, all require motor planning and control. The act of speaking requires an extensive amount of motor planning and execution; in that, the brain has to plan and execute muscle contractions of the respiratory muscles, laryngeal muscles, lips, tongue, and other articulators in order to produce the desired output (Shumway-Cook & Woollacott, 2001). The act of singing requires a heightened degree of coordination, requiring the muscles of respiration, phonation, and resonance to be precisely planned and executed in order to provide an acceptable vocal performance. Singing often requires extensive intensity and frequency manipulations (beyond the spoken word), which must be performed with apparent ease and artistry (Titze, 1993). Miller (2004) compares singers to figure skaters and tennis players, in that the singer must be disciplined in his or her practice in order to control motor responses and execute complex motor movements with precision. These athletes spend years in training to learn the subtleties and grace in precise execution of given movements. In the act of singing, when complex motor patterns are practiced extensively, motor responses become automatic and performance appears effortless (Miller, 2004). This kind of diligent practice of motor skills is used as an important tool to attain a high level of accuracy in motor performance. Many professional singers perform with apparent ease and artistic integrity without perceived effort by the listener. However, precise motor execution of difficult vocal passages involving quick runs of successive notes most likely results from years of technical voice training. Historically, teachers of singing believed that vocalises were essential in the training of the singing voice (See example in Figure 1; Corri, 1810; Garcia, 1824; Myer, 1897). Vocalises are repetitive vocal exercises devised for the development of a singer’s vocal instrument (Cleveland, 1991). These exercises are used as a means of vocal exercise using only vowels and are similar to the exercises and drills used in the development of musical skills with wind, brass or string instruments. Some common vocalises include: (a) solfegios, a vocal exercise that is to be sung to the syllables of the sol-fa system, or to tones without words or syllables, (b) cresendi or gradual increase in intensity of tone, (c) diminuendi or gradual decrease in tone, (d) appoggiatura which

1 Figure 1. Example of a Vocalise

refers to a musical ornament of an auxiliary grace note falling or rising to the main principal note, (e) portamento which refers to the gliding from one tone to another without any breaks in the sound, and (f) messa di voce or the steady increase or decrease in volume on one single long note. In the later stages of singing training, trills and vibrato may be introduced. Trills are simply rapid changes of a written note with a higher-pitched note above, while vibrato refers to a trembling effect created on a musical tone. Collectively, these exercises are designed to increase the agility, flexibility, and frequency range of the voice (Miller, 2004). It is hypothesized that performing repetitive vocalises elicits motor learning. The purpose of all motor exercises for athletics or musicians is to improve performance, not only on the specific exercises practiced, but to also transfer motor learning skills to other similar tasks which is referred to as the transfer of learning effect in the motor learning and motor planning literature (Magill, 1998). The motor planning literature demonstrates that an extensive amount of deliberate practice can lead to an advanced stage of learning where performance becomes automatic (Shumway-Cook & Woollacott, 2001). In this advanced stage, usually, the correct movement required for the task is almost always executed with minimal errors and appropriate sequencing (Fitts & Posner, 1967). Documented studies in motor learning literature primarily focus on the short-term learning effects of limb and arm movements or other gross motor tasks. These studies have concluded that repetitive practice drills can lead to a transfer of learning effect on a task that is similar to the practice drill, but is unfamiliar to the subject. Palmer and Meyer (2000) conducted a study which required 16 skilled pianists to practice a musical piece on the piano under speeded conditions. During the assessment of performance using altered playing conditions, all subjects appeared to show improved performance, however it should be noted that the largest transfer of learning effect was seen when the pitch sequence in the musical piece was similar to that of the practice piece. In another study, Shea and Morgan (1979) used sequential arm movements paired with colored lights to study motor learning. One group was assigned a random practice schedule while the other was assigned a blocked practice schedule. They concluded that both groups showed the transfer of learning effect on a similar task as well as a more complex task requiring a new arm movement. Thus, learning that occurs through the practice of vocalises, should not only improve precision and accuracy in changing pitch and loudness in a controlled manner but also assist in

transferring these skills when singing a new musical task. Anecdotally, many singers have noted increased control and precision of the voice during song production with extensive practice using the types of vocal exercises described above (Titze, 1993). However, despite the potential contribution of vocalises to improved singing performance, the effectiveness of these exercises is poorly documented in the singing and voice literature. In addition to the lack of documentation of the effectiveness of these exercises in the literature, the role of these exercises appears to have diminished somewhat in the teaching and practice of singing. Pedagogical vocal training of the 17th century, required students to practice vocalises extensively until they were perfected and only then would they allow their students to progress to singing passages and songs (Monahan, 1978; Taylor, 1914). However, the trend of exclusively teaching vocalises prior to singing songs began to decline during the late 19th and early 20th century (Monahan, 1978; Taylor, 1914). It is believed that this decreased emphasis on vocal exercises is due to the teaching style of many of the 20th century teachers. These teachers believed early training that includes songs is equally important for the growth of the student as a singer (Taylor, 1914). Additionally, some singing teachers believe that using extensive runs of vocalises (i.e. singing vocalises in rapid succession over and over again during the training period) may cause the student to lose patience and seek out another voice instructor (Cooke, 1921). More recent teachers, such as Robert Edwin (1990), are of the opinion that vocalises are often as repetitive and boring to the student as they are to the teacher. Also, from a practical standpoint, when parents are paying for voice lessons, or adults are paying for their own lessons, they expect that their child or they themselves will be learning “songs” not “scales.” Conversely, other current singing teachers, such as Richard Miller (2002), believe that technical training using vocal exercises should be conducted during the initial phase of study. However, Miller also believes these exercises should be quickly linked to actual music, as the primary aim of any singer is to improve artistic performance. He believes it is a mistake to presume that early training should be solely devoted to technical exercises as they are “pointless” and “out-dated methods” if they do not help the student transfer skills in the literature to be sung. This apparent decline in the emphasis of vocalises, in training by many vocal teachers, may be attributed to the progressive decline in the master-apprentice relationship over the last two centuries. The master-apprentice relationship refers to a relationship in which a student studies exclusively with one vocal instructor for a minimum of 5 years. Most often, the student

sought out a specific well-known instructor. These instructors generally had very few students that studied with them at one time. In this approach to singing instruction, it was thought that the teacher must be there to guide and criticize the student at all times (Nielsen, 1975). The teacher or “master” dominated the relationship and the student or “apprentice” simply followed the directions provided to him or her. In these master-apprentice relationships, students were not allowed to progress to songs until the teacher determined that the student had achieved the appropriate level of mastery in vocalises (Miller, 1996). Currently, much of the extensive instruction and training for professional classical singers occurs in a university or music conservatory setting. However, most university music instructors must assume responsibility for teaching 25 to 30 students at one time, and thus are unable to provide extensive amounts of individual attention to all students. With such a large number of students, it may be difficult to find adequate time to focus on vocalises considering that the students enrolled in university voice performance programs are often required to sing a given number of songs in French, German, Italian, English, etc. at a specific level of expertise whether or not the vocal instrument is trained to do so. Many parents who pay tuition to train their children in universities and conservatories or music schools expect to hear a “product” at the end of the semester of training and not just the mastery of vocalises, thus once again explaining the reduction of vocal exercises in the current training method. Despite the apparent reduction of the use of vocalises in voice training, based on the known benefits of practice in motor movements on motor performance, it appears that vocalises should be an essential component of this process of improving singing performance. Surprisingly, very little evidence in voice science and singing literature provide evidence for this assumption. Most studies documented in the motor learning literature have used gross motor tasks, such as arm or limb movements or fine-motor control tasks involving finger or hand movements, in their studies to analyze motor learning and transfer, as well as the role of various effects on learning and retention (Annett & Piech, 1985; Baddley & Longman, 1978; Bourne & Archer, 1956; Boyce, 1992; McCracken & Stelmach, 1977). While several studies have demonstrated alterations in acoustic parameters of the voice as a result of minimal voice warm- up exercise protocols (Elliot, Sundberg & Gramming, 1995; Sabol, Lee & Stemple, 1995; Motel, Fisher & Leydon, 2003), these studies have not examined the motor aspects of singing performance.

Based on the pedagogical literature related to training and flexibility in the artistic voice and the scientific basis for training muscle memory, the relevance of specific vocalises to performance carryover is clearly seen. The purpose of this study is to determine if specific training of vocalises can help trained singers perform similar musical passages with greater accuracy, efficacy, and precision. Statement of the Problem According to the vocal pedagogy literature, beginning in the 20th century, there has been a gradual reduction in the use of vocalises as an essential part of singing training. A variety of reasons can be cited for this decline which, in part include a decrease in the master-apprentice relationship, teaching style, and impatience on the part of the student and student’s family to start singing words and songs earlier in the training process. However, literature in the area of motor learning suggest that regular practice of specific motor movements involving complex motor actions eventually produces automaticity and precision in execution of that movement or a similar motor movement. Utilizing these concepts from the motor learning literature, the practice of vocalises should enable a singer to develop better control of the vocal mechanism and assist in execution of technically precise musical notes. While there is no available documentation in the literature suggesting that the lack of training in vocalises has had a negative impact on singing performance or causes a reduction in vocal ability, the potential benefits of practice with vocal exercises appears to be obvious. Documentation of the effect of vocalises on singing performance would be of particular interest to university and conservatory voice instructors, as well as students studying in the area of voice performance. The present study will analyze the effects of vocalises on motor learning in the act of singing. Vocalises that contain fast runs of notes are very difficult for singers to master, as a higher level of coordination is required to complete them. It is of interest to determine if practice with solfegios results in a transfer of learning effect, particularly in pieces that require high levels of flexibility and agility for quick successive notes. Research Questions The aim of the present study is to answer the following questions. 1) Does short-term practice of a specific vocalise improve the precision and accuracy of performance during that specific exercise?

2) Does short-term practice of a specific vocalise cause a “transfer of learning” effect resulting in improved precision and quality of a similar vocalise (notes are not the same, but the tempo, style and the complexity level of the exercises are similar)? 3) Does short-term practice of a specific vocalise cause a “transfer of learning” effect resulting in improved precision and quality of a more complex vocalise? 4) Does short-term practice of a specific vocalise cause a carryover effect such that performance on that vocalise is maintained even after a one-week rest period?

CHAPTER 2 Review of the Literature In order to understand the role of motor planning and control of singing production, it is imperative to review the basic anatomy, neural, and muscle physiology of voice production. This review will be followed by a discussion of the concepts of motor learning theories and motor performance with regards to vocal exercises and the potential benefit of the exercises for singing performance. Finally, the review will provide a detailed examination of the historical pedagogical use of vocalises in training singers and how vocal pedagogy has evolved over the centuries. Review of the Anatomy and Physiology of the Larynx Voice production occurs as a combined result of respiration, vocal fold vibration, resonance and articulation. In respiration, during the process of inhalation, the diaphragm contracts, the lungs expand, and air is drawn into the lungs. During exhalation, air rushes out of the lungs and it is this air that is instrumental in setting the vocal folds into vibration as it passes up through the larynx (Stemple, 2000). The larynx, composed of an intricate system of cartilages, muscles, and connective tissue, contributes to both communicative and vegetative functions of the body (Zemlin, 1998). Six laryngeal cartilages make up the bulk of the larynx, suspended from a single bone, the hyoid bone, in the neck region. These cartilages include the epiglottis, thyroid, cricoid, arytenoids, corniculates, and cuneiforms. The vocal folds, housed within the larynx are the single most important structures for the purpose of vocalization (Titze, 1993). The extrinsic laryngeal muscles which attach to the laryngeal cartilages or the hyoid bone, as well as a structure outside of the larynx (i.e. the sternum), primarily function to influence the height and/or tension of the larynx. These muscles manipulate the vocal tract to alter the filtering characteristics, thus modifying vocal quality and creating sound distinctions (Zemlin, 1998). The intrinsic laryngeal muscles on the other hand, are attached within the cartilaginous laryngeal structures. These muscles contract to modify the position and tension of the vocal cords for phonation (Zemlin, 1998). According to Van den Berg’s aerodynamic-myoelastic theory of vibration (1958), there is an interaction of aerodynamic properties, subglottal pressure, and transglottal airflow during voice production. These components interact with the elasticity and resistance provided by the

vocal fold tissue. During exhalation for speech, the vocal folds provide resistance and subglottal pressure increases. Once a sufficient amount of subglottal pressure is built up to overcome this resistance, the vocal folds are blown apart, creating an increase in airflow through the glottis and reducing subglottal pressure. This airflow causes negative pressure between the vocal folds and consequently, due to a momentary subglottal pressure drop (Bernoulli Effect), the vocal folds are sucked back together, thus completing a full vibratory cycle. Now with the vocal folds reapproximated at midline, the subglottal air pressure builds up again, thus repeating the process. This interplay of aerodynamic properties and elasticity of the structures accounts for the vibration of the vocal folds during voice production. The frequency of vocal fold vibration (fundamental frequency) is primarily determined by the tension and length of the vocal folds. Antagonistic action of the cricothyroid and thyroarytenoid muscles brings about the change in frequency. A higher frequency is achieved with lengthening of the vocal folds (brought about by contraction of the cricothyroid muscle) and a consequent increase in the tension on the folds. Similarly, a lower frequency is obtained with a shortening of the vocal folds resulting from a relaxation of the thyroarytenoid muscle (Zemlin, 1998). Vocal intensity, on the other hand, is controlled by an increase in subglottal air pressure and vocal fold adduction. Forceful adduction (by the simultaneous contraction of the lateral cricoarytenoid and the interarytenoid muscles) causes the folds to resist the air pressure beneath them. The duration of the vocal fold closed phase also increases with an attempt to increase intensity. The subglottal air pressure further builds up, and when the subglottal air pressure is sufficient enough to overcome the resistance of the vocal folds, the vocal folds are blown apart with increased amplitude, resulting in a more intense sound (Zemlin, 1998). Vocal quality is determined by the vibratory characteristics of the vocal folds, as well as the shape and size of the vocal tract (Titze, 1993). Other important parameters that influence quality include the adequacy of tension of the vocal folds, medial compression of the folds, subglottal pressure, the mass of the vocal folds, and physical symmetry of the vocal folds. For example, poor medial compression between the folds can result in an escape of subglottal airflow. The resulting vocal quality may be a breathy voice of reduced intensity (Zemlin, 1998).

Neural Control for the Laryngeal Mechanism The central control of laryngeal functioning is adaptable for the large variety of functional demands (biological and non-biological) it serves. For the non-biological functions of singing and speaking, these demands involve the learning of new patterns for fine control of laryngeal musculature and coordination (Titze, 1993). During the act of speaking or singing, vocalizations are initiated and terminated repeatedly in a precise manner and require coordination with respiratory, oral, facial, and lingual motor movements. The motor act of singing places an even greater demand on laryngeal control and its associated mechanisms of respiration and articulation. A great deal of skill and practice is required for the execution of singing production (Titze, 1993). The cerebral cortex is considered to be responsible for conceptualization, planning, and execution of phonation and singing. The cortex plays an important role in idealization of events, integration of information, feedback control, and finally coordination of the muscles required for the specific motor act of singing (Zemlin, 1998). The major areas in the cortex that have been identified to be directly responsible for vocalization include the motor strip or the precentral gyrus, the supplemental motor area, and the anterior area (Broca’s area) in the frontal lobe and the postcentral gyrus (Rolandic area) in the parietal lobe. Using Positron Emission Tomography (PET) studies, an increase in cerebral blood flow has been documented during the act of singing, in the supplemental motor area, anterior cingulate cortex, precentral gyri, anterior insula, and the cerebellum (Perry et al., 1999). With regards to the subcortical mechanisms, the ventrolateral nucleus of the thalamus is considered to be responsible for initiation of speech movements and also for control of loudness, pitch, rate, and articulation. The primary function of the thalamus is to integrate incoming sensory information, coordinate the outgoing information from the cortex, and perhaps add the emotional component to the voice (Zemlin, 1998). The hypothalamus, anterior cingulate gyrus and the amygdala are also considered to be responsible for affective or emotional vocalizations. In the cerebellum, the patterns of movement are controlled by the cerebellar hemispheres which make adjustments to ensure execution of well-coordinated movements while the vermis and the pars intermedia are crucial in control of the movement (Davis & Strand, 2004; Zemlin, 1998). In the midbrain, gray matter called periaqueductal gray (PAG), which is a collection of neuronal cell bodies, is an intermediate area responsible for vocalizations. The cortex sends

extensive input to the PAG during sound production and the PAG is believed to add the emotional expression to the voice (Davis & Strand, 2004). One hypothesis suggests that the axons of the PAG travel through the midbrain and pons to stimulate the nucleus retroambiguus in the medulla, which in turn stimulates the abdominal, intercostal, lingual, and facial motor neurons, and possibly the motor neurons of the larynx in the nucleus ambiguus. Periaqueductal gray stimulation triggers laryngeal and vagal afferent responses as well. The duration of the vocalization is regulated by the amount of stimulation and also by the amount of air available in the lungs. This circuitry is also known to control the breathing regulation required during speaking and singing (Davis & Strand, 2004). The laryngeal musculature is innervated via the vagus nerve (Xth cranial nerve). This nerve is a part of the peripheral nervous system and emerges from the vagal motor nuclei in the medulla. The motor nucleus called the nucleus ambiguus is controlled by the corticobulbar tract (pyramidal tract) from the motor cortex and the PAG. It is a mixed nerve that provides sensory information from the larynx and also consists of motor fibers that control the muscles of the larynx. The vagus nerve consists of (a) the pharyngeal branch which supplies the soft palate and the pharynx, (b) the superior laryngeal nerve, which is the primary sensory nerve for the larynx, and (c) the recurrent laryngeal nerve. The external branch of the superior laryngeal nerve is a motor branch and supplies the cricothyroid muscle exclusively, while the internal branch is a sensory branch and serves the mucous membrane of the larynx and the true vocal folds. The recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies sensory information below the level of the vocal folds and provides motor innervation to the remaining intrinsic muscles of the larynx (Colton & Casper, 1990; Stemple, 2000). Like other cranial nerve systems of the cortex, there is bilateral representation of the right and left sides of the larynx in both cortical hemispheres (Titze, 1993). The laryngeal and orofacial structures receive both ipsilateral and contralateral motor projections. Though fewer studies have been completed in the area of bilateral representation of the larynx, it is suggested that the organization of voluntary, meaningful speech on the left side of the brain is similar to the organization of prosody and emotions of speech in the temporal lobe on the right side (Davis & Strand, 2004). This arrangement serves to explain the rapid recovery of laryngeal function from injury to either cortex. For example, when one hemisphere is injured, the other hemisphere may compensate for the damaged hemisphere’s function until it recuperates, as it receives similar

projections. However, an exception to hemispheric division may be seen in highly trained motor skills, such as singing, as it has been suggested that for complex activities, such as the act of singing, the brain uses interactive networks between the right and left cortical and subcortical structures (Davis & Strand, 2004; Titze, 1993). Thus, the act of vocalizing or singing, involves anatomical structures from the cerebral cortex in the central nervous system to laryngeal nerves in the peripheral nervous system, each of which are instrumental and play important roles to accomplish the final act of singing. In summary, the idea or intent (volition) for producing a sound originates in the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex. This information is projected to Broca’s area in the left or dominant hemisphere and also to the musical controls located in the temporal lobe of the right hemisphere, in order to add prosody to the delivered message. The thalamus coordinates the information and the midbrain prepares to produce the motor act. The nuclei of the brainstem are stimulated by the PAG and the corticobulbar tract from the motor cortex and signals are then sent to the laryngeal musculature via the external and recurrent laryngeal nerves which innervate the laryngeal muscles for phonation. The emerging sound couples with the resonance characteristics of the vocal tract and the articulators. Each part of the vocal tract has specific resonating characteristics, such as the supraglottic cavity, the oral cavity, and nasal cavity. When phonation occurs, the shape and size of these cavities can be voluntarily altered and made larger, smaller, narrower, or wider by muscle adjustments, depending upon the individual’s capacity. This vocal output may be further fine tuned by both auditory and tactile feedback. While auditory feedback refers to the process of an individual hearing his/her own voice and making the necessary modifications in his/her voice, tactile feedback refers to the sensation of feeling the voice, particularly through bone conduction location and precision of the articulators (Ware, 1998). Thus, based on the above literature, the dynamics involved in the process of singing are complex and require careful planning, sequencing and execution. Motor Learning Theories of Motor Learning As discussed above, neural processes involved in motor control for laryngeal functioning during speech and singing are highly complex. Singing tasks, particularly those with quick changes in pitch, place demands on the neural control system. Neurologically, rapid messages

must be sent from the higher cortical centers of the brain to the laryngeal musculature in order to accomplish complex tasks, such as changes in length of production of the sung notes, along with changes in intensity and pitch of the notes. However, currently no studies have documented the principle of motor learning in singing performance. Thus, the present study examines the potential benefit of practicing vocal exercises or vocalises on motor learning during singing. Motor learning can be defined as the study of the acquisition and/or modification of movement for a specific task (Shumway-Cook & Woollacott, 2001). Motor learning is a set of processes that lead to relatively permanent changes in the capability for producing skilled action. Learning of a behavior or motor response results from direct practice or experience (Schmidt & Lee 1999; Shumway-Cook & Woollacott, 2001). Schmidt (1988) stated that motor learning essentially reflects four basic concepts which include: (a) learning is a process of acquiring the capability for skilled action, (b) learning results from experience or practice, (c) learning cannot be measured directly and is inferred from behavior, and (d) learning produces relatively permanent changes in behavior (Magill, 1998; Schmidt & Lee 1999; Shumway-Cook & Woollacott, 2001). Several of the well-known theories in motor learning are described briefly below. Three-stage model. Psychologists, Fitts and Posner (1967), proposed three main phases for the process of motor learning. The first stage of skill acquisition is called the cognitive stage of learning which is characterized by understanding the nature of the task at hand, developing strategies to carry out the task, and finally determining how to evaluate the task. All of these tasks require attention from the learner. The second stage of learning is referred to as the associative stage. In this stage there appears to be lesser variability in performance as the person has already selected the best strategy for the given task and now focuses on refining the skill. The third and final stage of skill acquisition is called the autonomous stage which is characterized by the automaticity of the skill, and in general requires a low degree of attention for performance. Thus, following the autonomous stage, the individual can begin to focus his or her attention to alternate aspects of the skill (i.e., scanning the environment for obstacles that may impede performance or focusing on a different task). Closed-loop theory. Adams (1971), a researcher in physical education, proposed a theory in which an individual utilizes sensory feedback in order to achieve an ongoing production of the skilled movement. The two distinct types of memory believed to be important in the process are

memory trace which is used in the selection and initiation of the movement and perceptual trace which is the internal reference of correctness that is modified and strengthened over a period of practice. According to Adams, once the memory trace initiates a movement, the perceptual trace takes over and carries out the movement and also detects errors using sensory feedback. Thus, the Closed-Loop Theory suggests that in order to train a motor skill, it is important to practice the same exact movement repeatedly. The theory also suggests that better learning of a movement can be ensured if greater time is spent in practicing the movement as accurately as possible. Schema theory. Schmidt (1975), also a researcher in the field of physical education, proposed the Schema Theory. His theory was derived from open-loop control processes which primarily ignores sensory feedback and the motor program concept. He predicted that in the process of learning a new motor program for a skill, an individual learns a general set of rules and these rules can be applied to a variety of contexts. Thus, he proposed that motor programs contain general rules for a specific class of movements. According to Schmidt, when a movement is made, four concepts are stored in memory. These concepts include (a) the initial movement conditions, which refer to the position of the body and the weight of the object manipulated; (b) the rules that contain temporal and spatial patterns of muscle activity for a specific movement; (c) the outcome of the movement in terms of knowledge of results; and, (d) the sensory feedback of the movement in terms of how it looked, sounded, and felt. The information obtained is stored in the form of a recognition schema (sensory) and a recall schema (motor). The recall schema is utilized during selection of a specific motor task, while the recognition schema is used to evaluate the task. Evidence of Motor Learning The theories described above address the processes involved in learning a new motor task. There are components of each theory that can clearly be seen in the process during which a singer learns a new song. The singer must attend to the task, and use his or her past knowledge and experience for the task (Schema Theory), relying on a general set of rules previously derived for the act of singing. The individual then tends to experiment with different strategies for this motor act as he or she starts singing. Performance is variable but starts to improve as the individual discovers the strategies that work best for this motor act. When the same run of notes are performed repeatedly, there appears to be lesser variability in performance as the individual has already selected the best strategy for this motor

act of singing (Three-Stage Model). Now, the individual begins to refine this skill on the basis of the feedback that he or she receives and it may take anywhere from a few days to a few months to reach perfection in performing this task (Closed-Loop Theory). However, as the individual practices this same song over and over, it reaches a stage of automaticity where minimal levels of attention are required to achieve the task. The process which a singer undergoes to learn a new musical piece is clearly seen from the motor learning theories described. However, the underlying rationale for practice exercises in athletics or music is to gain skills that are transferable to a variety of athletic tasks or musical pieces and not just one athletic movement or one song. Athletic and vocal coaches/instructors encourage the use of practice drills and exercises to help their athletes or musicians gain flexibility in performance. Clear examples of how practice exercises improve performance on gross and fine motor tasks in a variety of contexts will be discussed further in this review. However, the athlete and musician cannot only practice the game or the musical piece to be performed. Transfer of Learning Transfer of learning refers to the gain in the ability to perform a motor task in a new context or learn a novel skill. This transfer is said to occur due to prior experience or practice on some other related task (Magill, 1998; Schmidt & Lee, 1999). When experience with a previously performed skill facilitates the performance of a new skill or an old skill in a new context, a positive transfer is said to occur. There is a positive correlation between the amount of similarity between the two tasks and the amount of positive transfer that results (Magill, 1998). In a study of retention and the transfer of learning effect, Shea and Morgan (1979) examined motor learning of sequential gross arm movements (i.e. knocking down barriers in a specific order using a specially designed apparatus). One group, consisting of 36 subjects, completed a random practice schedule, while the other group also consisting of 36 subjects, had a blocked practice schedule. Each subject performed 18 trials of three different arm movements in response to specific colored signals which provided individual directions for the appropriate sequence of movements. Two transfer tests were carried out on the same day and then after a 10-day period. One of the transfer tests was similar in complexity to the practiced task while the second transfer task was more complex. Results indicated that all subjects showed an improved performance, thus confirming that a transfer of learning had occurred. More specifically, the

first group which was assigned a random practice schedule performed significantly better on both transfer tasks than the second group who had received a blocked practice schedule. In another study, Palmer and Meyer (2000) demonstrated transfer of learning in 16 skilled pianists. All subjects played the same musical piece until they could perform it without any errors, after which they performed the same piece 10 times under speeded conditions (practice trials). Performance was not measured with these 10 trials. The subjects completed four trials of the same piece under four new playing conditions which included playing the piece (a) using same pitch sequence with different hand-finger movements, (b) using same pitch sequence with same hand-finger movement, (c) using different pitch sequence with the same hand-finger movements, and (d) using different pitch sequence with different hand-finger movement. The results of this study indicated that a transfer of learning effect was seen in all of the playing conditions, however a greater transfer of learning was seen on a similar task, i.e., when the same pitch sequence was maintained with the same hand-finger movement. In another study examining the transfer of learning principle, Seidler (2004) trained 33 subjects on five types of joystick aiming tasks. The first group consisting of 19 subjects, was given multiple motor learning tasks: (a) three visuomotor adaptation tasks during which the visual on a computer screen display was rotated in a counterclockwise direction, (b) gain of display (i.e., increase in the size of the image providing an additional visual challenge), and (c) repetitive movement sequences in a joystick aiming task. A control group consisting of 7 subjects experienced the gain of display, while the other control group consisting of 6 subjects trained in repetitive movement sequences condition only. All groups practiced the same number of trials on their respective tasks. On the second day, all groups were subjected to baseline trials, as well as variation trials of all 3 tasks (i.e. visuomotor adaptation, gain of display, and repetitive movement tasks). Results of the study indicated that all groups showed a transfer of learning effect. Specifically, the multiple learning task group was able to more easily adapt to the gain of display task, as compared to the control group who received only gain of display training. The multiple learning task group also adapted faster to the repetitive sequence learning task than the control group that focused only on the repetitive sequence task. Thus this study also demonstrates that a variation of the original task can effectively demonstrate the principle of transfer of learning given sufficient and variable practice trials.

As discussed previously, the process of learning a motor skill ultimately results in a state of heightened ability to perform the same movement more skillfully in a specific situation. The goal of practicing a skill is to increase the strength of this internal motor memory, which should in turn lead to an increased capability to perform this task in the future. If practice and drills are done correctly, there will be a transfer of skill to other tasks as well (Schmidt & Lee, 1999). However, learning cannot be observed or assessed directly as the behaviors are internal. Hence it is objectively difficult to study if the process of learning has occurred (Schmidt & Lee, 1999). As seen in the studies described above, learning is inferred based on specific characteristics of an individual’s performance. These characteristics include: (a) the individual demonstrates a higher skill level during performance, (b) there is increased stability and lesser variability in performance, (c) there is an increase in the duration of improved performance, and (d) there is adaptability to different performance contexts (Magill, 1998). Pre-practice and Practice Conditions Other components of practice drills or exercise that must be considered in motor learning pertain to pre-practice conditions, practice conditions, and feedback. Pre-practice conditions are variables, such as motivation of the individual and verbal information provided prior to the task which may influence the individual’s performance. Motor learning is said to be more effective when there is increased motivation to perform the task and when the individual is provided with some image, idea or verbal instructions for the task. Based on the information provided, the individual understands what is expected from him or her and performs accordingly (Schmidt & Lee, 1999). In a study by Boyce (1992), the effects of motivation on the motor task of shooting a rifle were assessed using three groups of subjects. One group was assigned a motivational goal by the examiner, another group set their own specific goals, while the third group was given a standard goal of “do your best.” All groups participated in a 5-day practice period and a 1 week retention period, after which performance on shooting a rifle was assessed. Results indicated that the groups that had set motivational or specific goals performed better on the retention test than the third group that was given the standard goal. Hodges and Franks (2002) reviewed the available literature on the usefulness of instruction prior to execution of motor tasks and suggested a few of their own guidelines for pre- practice conditions when teaching a motor act. They believed that the efficacy of instruction

depends on the pre-existing skills of the learner related to that task. In conclusion, they stated that it is important for coaches to provide instructions about the final goal prior to commencement of the task and also provide feedback to the learners so they can perform better on consecutive trials. In addition to the role of pre-practice conditions in motor learning, it is also important to analyze the role of other practice conditions, such as distribution of practice (massed versus distributed) and practice variability. There is a lack of research with regards to the ideal number and duration of practice sessions required to master a motor learning task (Magill, 1998). Distributed practice is said to result in better learning as this type of practice provides longer rest periods and shorter periods of work. Massed practice, on the other hand, subjects the participants to significantly longer periods of work and a lesser duration of rest between trials (Magill, 1998; Schmidt & Lee, 1999). The advantage of distributed practice schedule over massed practice schedule is supported by Bourne and Archer (1956) who completed a study with 5 groups of subjects, who received 21 trials of 30 seconds each, for a task in which the subject was required to track an object on a moving turntable. The first group of subjects received no rest between trials, while the second, third, fourth, and fifth groups received rest periods of 15, 30, 45 and 60 seconds respectively between trials. The results indicated that improved performance was seen for groups with longer periods of rest between trials as compared to the groups with shorter rest periods, even though all groups had constant work periods. The group that received a 60-second break period between trials demonstrated a significant improvement over the group that received no rest between trials. In another study that examined practice periods, Baddley and Longman (1978) examined 4 groups of subjects who received training 5 days a week on a typewriter-like keyboard for a total of 60 hours. The eventual goal for all participants was to be able to type 80 key strokes per minute. The first group practiced in 1 hour slots, once a day for 12 weeks; the second group practiced in 1 hour slots, twice a day for 6 weeks; the third group practiced in 2 hour slots, once a day for 6 weeks; while the fourth group practiced in 2 hour slots, twice a day for 3 weeks. Results of the study indicated that the group with the most distributed practice schedule (i.e. the first group) achieved the goal of typing 80 key strokes per minute with 55 hours of practice, while all the other groups required more practice time.

In another study, Annett and Piech (1985) studied a computer-based shooting game with 2 groups of subjects. Each trial session consisted of attempting to shoot at 10 moving targets. One group received 10 trials on one practice day, while the other group received 5 trials over a 2- day period. A performance test was given to both groups, 1 day after the practice trials, which indicated that the second group (i.e. the group with a more distributed practice schedule) performed better on the test tasks and with lesser errors in their trial attempts. The above studies clearly demonstrate the advantage of a distributed practice schedule over a massed practice schedule. Based on the findings of these studies, the concept of distributed practice appears to elicit improved motor learning and should be incorporated into motor learning protocols. Another concept in the motor learning literature which is said to impact motor performance and learning is that of practice variability. Practice variability refers to the conditions under which the practice occurs. Constant practice refers to practice conditions that are kept constant throughout (i.e., the same kind of motor movement is repeated over and over throughout the practice). Variable practice on the other hand, refers to practice conditions that are altered from the original task. The variations can occur in the physical environment, availability of feedback, or in the skill itself (i.e., speeding up the sequence of the movement or presenting the tasks in a random order; Magill, 1998; Schmidt & Lee, 1999). Performance on a task is usually superior if practice conditions are constant as compared to variable conditions when measured on the same task, following the training trials. However, it is important to note that the transfer of learning effect (i.e., transfer of skills to other similar tasks) is said to be greater if practice conditions are variable as compared to constant practice conditions. The above concept was the primary aspect of a study conducted by McCracken and Stelmach (1977), in which the authors examined constant and variable practice conditions between two groups of subjects on their ability to perform an arm movement. One group was assigned a constant practice condition of producing the movement at a velocity of 200 ms, while the variable group could perform the same movement at different velocities. Both groups received the same number of practice trials, and while the first group showed better performance on the same 200 ms movement, a new task which required arm movement at a different velocity, clearly favored the variable practice group. The results of the study indicated that the group who practiced with variable conditions showed fewer errors in performance of the new task, while the other group that practiced with constant practice conditions showed greater errors. These

findings support that greater transfer of learning occurs with variable practice conditions. Other examples of variable versus constant practice conditions were discussed earlier in the review (Palmer & Meyer, 2000; Seidler, 2004; Shea & Morgan, 1979). Due to lack of motor learning literature in the area of singing, it would be interesting to examine the possible benefits of variable versus constant vocalises practiced in a singing task. Such a study may prove to be beneficial to singers and voice instructors as it can help to determine the better practice condition for optimal learning in singing. Currently, most studies in the area of motor learning have examined the effects of only short-term motor learning. According to Adams (1987) research in the area of motor retention is based primarily on experimental evidence derived from short-term experiments. The majority of motor learning and retention studies described previously in this review have limited their practice trials sessions to 1 day (Bourne & Archer, 1956; Palmer & Meyer, 2000; Shea & Morgan, 1979), or to 2 days (Annett & Piech 1985; Seidler, 2004). Few other studies have provided practice trials over extended periods of time such as 5 days (Boyce, 1992) or 12 weeks (Baddley & Longman, 1978) as the authors were studying the effects of various practice conditions, such as motivation and practice distribution schedule respectively, on the motor learning principle. Studies lasting as short as 1 or 2 days in duration have clearly demonstrated that practice trials on a motor task cause the process of motor learning to occur (when assessed on a retention or transfer task). The benefits of changes in motor performance observed even after short practice periods should be of interest to instructors and students of singing in regards to improving performance on difficult pieces (i.e., those that contain variable notes in quick succession). The fact that many of these studies have shown improved performance on a new similar task (e.g., Bourne & Archer, 1956; Palmer & Meyer, 2000; Seidler, 2004; Shea & Morgan, 1979), and in some cases more complex tasks (e.g. Palmer & Meyer, 2000; Shea & Morgan, 1979) should be of interest in regards to using vocalises to improve performance on a singing task (i.e., a musical piece). The Underlying Rationale for Vocalises The core concepts from motor learning have been applied in the area of singing instruction (vocal pedagogy) for many years. Vocal exercises have been used in vocal training to achieve specific goals, including increasing the accuracy of producing specific notes, as well as to achieve greater speed of transition between notes using rapid scales and arpeggios. Most

singing teachers believe that the goal of vocal training is to obtain a uniform vocal quality over a wide pitch range as quickly as possible (Titze, 1993). Some vocal instructors believe that vocalises are a pre-requisite or an essential element of learning to sing (Cleveland, 1991). Monahan (1978) believed that vocalises address specific goals, which include developing the quality of the voice, uniting the vocal registers, combining vowels with consonants, perfecting the messa di voce (or the steady increase or decrease in intensity on one, single-extended note), and the portamento (gliding from one note to another without any breaks in the sound). Range extension, flexibility, and agility of the voice are important variables in singing. These variables are often the targets of vocal exercises. It is believed that vocalises help students develop a good vocal technique and these techniques are expected to be utilized by the student during song production (i.e., transfer of learning; Boytim, 2003). Vocal Pedagogy History In order to understand the rationale for the present study, it is important to discuss the relevance of vocalises and how vocal training or vocal pedagogy has undergone a gradual transition from earlier centuries to the present day. Some of the earliest work with regards to vocal exercises can be traced back to the 17th century. Pier Francesco Tosi (1647-1732) was one of the first teachers whose work and teaching methods have been recognized. He firmly believed that the student should first learn complete musicianship; this means that the student should learn solfege before singing words. He felt that if the students were to move directly to singing words, they may lack necessary flexibility, agility, and quality of tone. He trained his students to sing at all attainable pitches with an emphasis on using vowels for practice (Coffin, 1989). This trend of training students with vocalises continued through the 18th and 19th centuries. Manuel Garcia I (1775-1832), a well-known composer, conductor, and teacher was a prominent vocal instructor in the 18th century. Having received his training in the Porpora method, an ancient Italian method of training, he taught his students in Paris with the most rigid and thorough method of training. Between 1819 and 1822, Garcia I published a book called Exercises Pour La Voix (Coffin, 1981). This book is said to include 340 vocal exercises. According to Garcia, if a student practiced and perfected all of his 340 vocal exercises, then he or she could eliminate any vocal difficulty that might be encountered while singing. These

exercises included connection of tones, messa di voce, cresendi, diminuendi, and agility. As the student progressed through these exercises, the exercises became more difficult in range and agility aspects. Exercises related to trills and cadenzas were also addressed in this book (Coffin, 1989). Monahan (1978) stated that more than 100 books consisting of exercises and vocalises appeared in the literature before the end of the 19th century by a variety of teachers. However, these books did not include any verbal instructions, as the authors assumed that the instructions for these exercises were provided by the teacher during practice sessions. The vocal exercise books of the 1777-1877 era primarily contained progressive exercises that served as a functional, wordless methodology for training the voice. The books contained exercises which were graded in a particular order from easy to difficult as the training continued. The progression of the targeted exercises were as follows: (a) increasing vocal flexibility in order to extend range, (b) increasing the length of the phrase in order to develop breath control, (c) changing the duration of notes, and (d) increasing larger skips and leaps in notes to achieve register control. Additionally, phrase marks were added to define sections or groups of notes to be sung together. The messa di voce, which provides training in breath and dynamic control, was also addressed (Monahan, 1978). Another influential voice instructor of the 19th century was Manuel Garcia II (1805- 1906), son and student of Manuel Garcia I. Garcia II is considered to be a very prominent figure in modern vocal pedagogy. He received recognition for writing several significant systematic, detailed texts on the vocal mechanism. Notably, Garcia II discovered the laryngoscope in 1855 as a result of his interest in vocal anatomy, and he based his teaching method on his scientific understanding of the vocal mechanism. Posture, phonation onset (coup de glotte), breath control, enunciation, and use of three registers (chest, falsetto, and head) were the fundamental aspects on which he focused his training (Ware, 1998). During the 19th century, another prominent instructor to include vocalises as an essential component of training was Mathilde de Castroni Marchesi (1821-1913). She received training under Garcia II (stemming from the bel canto tradition) for about 4 years after which she was thoroughly versed in his techniques (Coffin, 1989). In her book, Marchesi stated that the students must completely develop and unite the registers before attempting to sing with words (Marchesi – Vocal Method). She believed that the vocal mechanism had to be trained in order to

execute all possible musical and rhythmical forms before progressing to the aesthetical aspect of singing. According to Marchesi, elasticity and power of the laryngeal muscles could be developed using a rationale and progressive course of vocal “gymnastics,” without causing any fatigue to the vocal mechanism. She accepted students on the condition that they would train under her for a minimum of 2 years (Coffin, 1989). She recommended short practice sessions for her students initially, lasting about 5 to 10 minutes. Practice sessions were conducted three or four times each day. The practice time was gradually increased 5 minutes at a time, to about a half an hour (Marchesi-Vocal Method). During periods of vocal training, she recommended those vocalises which best suited individual voices of her students. Marchesi wrote approximately 36 books of vocalises (Coffin, 1982). In her book titled, Marchesi Vocal Method- Part 1& 11, Marchesi asserted that every art consists of a technical component and an aesthetical component and thus it is imperative that a singer overcome the technical obstacles in order to achieve perfection in the artistry of singing. Gradually, the focus started to shift from vocalises to other aspects of singing. In 1840, Garcia II wrote Memoire Sur La Voix Humaine, Physiologie Du Chant (Physiology of Singing), and Abstract of Elocution and Music In Accordance with the Principles of Physiology. The Laws of Life was published in 1842, followed by The Physiology of the Human Voice in 1845 (Monahan, 1978). The time period during which these books were published was considered to be the starting point of the “scientific era” of voice training. The focus of the books published in this era shifted from vocalises to the physical structure and function of the vocal mechanism. Towards the end of the 19th century, sections of anatomy and physiology were the main component of the new works being published, along with various theories of breath, phonatory, and resonance controls. Emphasis on practice of a series of progressively ordered exercises to develop the voice began to show a decline (Monahan, 1978; Taylor, 1914). Some of the published work during this time period contained no exercises at all. Thus, towards the end of this century, the focus of voice training shifted from vocal exercises to a scientific understanding of the vocal mechanism (Monahan, 1978). In the 20th century, according to Monahan (1978), few important concepts were beginning to be rejected from the voice training protocol including extensive and repeated pre- vocal exercises. It is believed that these teachers used songs early in training due to the fear of losing students to other teachers if they did not train the students in songs by the first or second

lesson (Cooke, 1921). Joan Frey Boytim is a well-known 20th century voice instructor and an expert teacher who has been directing a private studio for over 45 years. In her book, The Private Voice Studio (2003), Boytim stated that even though she believes in the benefits of warm-up exercises and vocal exercises to target vocal technique, she is unable to require her students to practice vocalises as much as she would with students in the past. She noted that the inability to require students to practice exercises is due to lack of time in a voice lesson. Students practice with the teacher in the available time and are then asked to practice exercises and songs at home, where monitoring their performance becomes difficult. Sharon Marby is another well-known 20th century singer and has been teaching for over 30 years. In her book, Exploring Twentieth-Century Vocal Music (2002), she stated that she believes the decline in vocalises is due to the fact that it is often difficult to convince students that success can be achieved only when they develop a wide-range knowledge of repertoire through practice in vocalises. She cited the fact that there are performers who have achieved fame through a limited number of works, but the popularity of these performers is brief and their careers are relatively short. Unfortunately, however, some students admire these performers and aspire to achieve a similar status in a short period. Students often want to move quickly to learning songs in order to advance their career, which in turn causes an inability to realize the benefits of vocalises training. This kind of impatience on part of the student may prevent them from devoting the required time, concentration and effort in the training years on vocalises. The decline in vocalises training can be further ascribed to the large number of students receiving training from one instructor. Voice teachers at universities and conservatories are often required to teach up to 25 to 30 students each semester. This student load limits the amount of time devoted to each student’s training and monitoring of vocal development. Furthermore, parents of these children who are paying tuition, expect to hear improvements in song production rather the mastery of vocalises. The above factors may additionally contribute to the gradual decline and elimination of vocalises training from voice studios. Literature in Vocal Exercises As previously discussed, the use of vocalises in singing instruction has seen a gradual decline from past centuries to the present day. Despite this decline in the emphasis on vocal exercises in singing instruction, the exercises appear to incorporate key motor learning concepts that would be beneficial to the study of singing. Incorporating the most important aspects of

motor learning to singing, it can be hypothesized that regular practice of repetitive vocalises would enable a singer to improve performance on the same vocalises at the end of the practice trials. Furthermore, this type of practice may eventually lead to a transfer of learning effect such that other vocalises can also be sung with minimal errors. However, literature supporting the use of vocal exercises in singing improvement in the present day is scarce. The few studies that exist, employed vocal exercises as a tool to examine its effects on phonation pressure threshold and frequency range. In one such study examining the benefits of completing exercises prior to singing performance, Elliot, Sundberg, and Gramming (1995) examined the effects of a warm-up session on the phonation pressure threshold (PTP) in 10 amateur singers. Phonation pressure threshold refers to the lowest amount of subglottal pressure that is capable of bringing about vocal fold vibration. The warm-up session was initiated by a professional singing teacher and the subjects sang the syllable /mu/ at approximately the middle of their pitch range in a descending melodic pattern. Other exercises involved pitch and loudness changes for different vowels. This experiment was a one-session study where the warm-up session lasted approximately 30 minutes. Great variability was seen in PTP among the singers, in that, with an increase in pitch, PTP increased in some subjects, decreased in some, and remained unaffected in the others. Also, after the warm-up, all subjects reported that their voice “felt better” and that they had more control of their singing voice. Therefore, while this study did not suggest significant changes in PTP, it demonstrated that vocal exercises may improve perceptions of increased technical control of the voice. In another study, Motel, Fisher, and Leydon (2003) examined the effect of complete vocal rest and controlled warm-up exercises in soprano singers on PTP at three different pitches and on maximum and minimum frequency phonation. Nine singers were recruited and tested twice on 2 days (i.e., pre-exercise and post-exercise measures were obtained on both days). Based on each individual participant’s maximum phonatory frequency range, target pitches were selected for the warm-up in terms of high, comfortable and low pitch. The warm-up consisted of descending and ascending scales of /zi/ in legato style, ascending triads of /i/ in a staccato style, descending thirds on /trioioi/, and ascending and descending scales of /vi/ in allegro style. On the first day, post-treatment measures were collected immediately after a 10-minute vocal warm- up. On the second day of the study, post-treatment measures were obtained after a 10-minute

complete rest period with no vocal warm-up. Results of the study indicated that 6 of the 9 subjects demonstrated a significant positive increase in PTP with the warm-up and a negative difference with rest. This change was documented only at the high pitch and not at the comfortable and low pitches. Further, the study suggested that the vocal fold mucosa underwent a significant effect physiologically as evidenced by consistent increase in PTP during the measurement post-warm-up, but not in maximum and minimum phonation frequency. The authors of this study also suggested that a more extended vocal exercise program may have to be utilized in the future to study its effects on laryngeal muscle fibers and vocal motor learning. The above studies examined the effects of vocal warm-up and exercises on the vocal mechanism using PTP measures and frequency range, however, to date, there is no study that examines the benefit of vocalises specifically on motor or singing performance. So far, most studies in the area of vocal exercises have focused on the acoustic and aerodynamic parameters of vocal function rather than motor learning and transfer of learning effects. There are also no studies that have subjectively examined the effects of vocalises using a perceptual judgment component. The literature in the area of motor learning claims that regular practice of specific motor movements can lead to greater automaticity and correctness in execution of that movement, and therefore it can be hypothesized that short-term practice in vocalises can aid in improving the execution of the specific vocalise and other similar vocalises. Purpose of the study Early vocal pedagogy literature reveals that teachers of singing believed that training in vocalises was mandatory to develop the vocal mechanism adequately and that appropriate development could be achieved through rigorous vocal training and discipline. The method typically required about 4 to 5 years of training under a skilled vocal pedagogue. More recently however, this pedagogic style has been replaced by training through songs and passages with little attention to vocalises as a basis for vocal training. With the decline of intensive vocalises from present day vocal training, the question arises whether an important and essential part of vocal training is being ignored. It is important to note that vocal exercises utilize concepts of motor learning in the manner in which they are practiced and executed. Even though previous studies have analyzed motor learning through limb and other physical motor movements, no study has examined singing as a motor act in relation to motor learning. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to

determine if short-term practice with vocal exercises of specific musical notes activates the process of motor learning, and if it assists trained singers to transfer this skill to other musical runs with similar complexity and greater complexity. Furthermore, based on the advantages of specific practice conditions as discussed earlier in this review, the present study will incorporate a variable and distributed practice schedule. For the purpose of this study, the benefits of training of vocalises will be examined in regards to improved precision in the production of sung musical note runs. Specifically, the study will focus on training in solfegios (fast repeating, multiple note patterns on the same syllable), a type of vocalise that requires heightened coordination of muscle and motor movements. Such training requires practice and flexibility of the vocal apparatus and helps to prepare the vocal instrument to effectively sing the same notes in a song. Incorporating some of the key motor learning concepts, the solfegios will be practiced using speeded conditions and rest periods in order to maximize benefits of motor learning through variable and distributed training schedules respectively. Also, the present study is one of the first of its kind in the area of singing, and it attempts to study only the short-term effects of vocalises training. Thus, this study should represent an initial investigation in the area of motor learning in singing and will attempt to develop a methodology for other studies that may examine long-term effects in the area of practice and training in vocal performance. Research Hypotheses It is hypothesized that: 1) there will be significantly greater average precision with regards to accuracy of the notes and accuracy of the tempo during the performance of a practice solfegio, a second similar solfegio exercise with similar complexity, and a third, more complex solfegio for a group of singers who complete a training program with the practice solfegio compared to the performance of a group of singers who do not complete a training program. 2) there will be a significantly greater average precision with regards to accuracy of notes and accuracy of tempo during the performance of all three solfegio exercises following a 1-week rest period for the group that receives the training with the practice solfegio compared to the performance of a group of singers who do not complete a training program.

Null Hypotheses It is hypothesized that: 1) there will be no significant change in precision with regards to accuracy of the notes and accuracy of the tempo during the performance of a practice solfegio exercise, a second solfegio exercise with similar complexity, and a third, more complex solfegio for a group of singers who complete a training program with the practice vocalise compared to the performance of a group of singers who do not complete a training program. 2) there will be no significant change with regards to accuracy of notes and accuracy of tempo during the performance of all three solfegio exercises following a 1- week rest period for the group that receives the training with the practice solfegio compared to the performance of a group of singers who do not complete a training program.

CHAPTER 3 Methods Participants The current study examined 12 female soprano singers recruited from the Department of Music at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. The participants were divided into an experimental group and a control group, each containing 6 individuals, based on their age and years of vocal training. The age range for the participants in the experimental group was 19 to 24 years (mean = 21.83 years, SD = 1.83). The age range for the participants in the control group was 19 to 21 years (mean = 19.16, SD = 1.16). All participants had negative history for voice disturbances, recent cold or flu, and neuromuscular disease. Participants with a history of tobacco smoking within the last 5 years were also excluded from the study. Participants filled out a questionnaire in order to determine their eligibility to participate in the study (Appendix A). The questionnaire required the participants to provide information about their singing background, both at pre-college and at college level. The total amount of vocal training received by each participant in the experimental and control groups at pre-college and college is provided in Table 1. Table 1 Vocal Training Range (in months) for the Experimental and Control Groups ______Experimental Group Training Pre-College College Level Total Range Participant 1 37-42 19-24 56-66 Participant 2 37-42 37-42 74-84 Participant 3 37-42 37-42 74-84 Participant 4 37-42 37-42 74-84 Participant 5 48 18-24 66-72 Participant 6 37-42 7-12 44-52

______Control Group Training Pre-College College Level Total Range Participant 1 37-42 7-12 44-54 Participant 2 24-30 12-18 36-48 Participant 3 48 12-18 60-66 Participant 4 18-24 7-12 25-36 Participant 5 0-6 7-12 7-18 Participant 6 84 24-30 108-114 ______Sigh-Singing Ability The design of the present study was developed primarily to assess the effects of vocalises on singing performance. The ability of a singer to understand and precisely sing the notes of a new song or musical piece depends to a certain extent on his/her sight- singing abilities. However, each individual singer differs in his/her sight-singing ability. Those individuals who have received more training and exposure to sight singing courses may perform better than those who have not received such training. Conversely, there may be other singers who haven’t taken courses in sight-singing, but feel confident in their ability to sing a new musical piece due to their many years of experience. Following the singing tasks, participants were asked to provide information regarding their sight-singing abilities. Information required included the number of sight-singing courses the participants had taken and how they would rate themselves on their sight- singing abilities on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is poor and 5 is excellent. Table 2 provides a mean and SD for each of the above parameters. Table 2 Distribution of Sight-Singing Courses and Self-Rating Score ______Sight-Singing Courses Self-Rating Score Mean SD Mean SD Experimental Group (n=6) 3.16 2.22 3.58 1.11

______Sight-Singing Courses Self-Rating Score Mean SD Mean SD Control Group (n=6) 2.66 1.03 3.66 1.21

Laryngeal Screening Prior to the initiation of the experiment, a certified speech-language pathologist examined all participants for vocal fold health via laryngeal videostroboscopy. The laryngeal videostroboscopic examination was performed using a 70-degree rigid endoscope (Kay Elemetrics, Model 9106) to document the function of the vocal folds. The participant was instructed to open her mouth and produce a prolonged /i/ sound. The clinician then inserted the endoscope directly into the participant’s mouth while pressing firmly on the tongue and angling the endoscope in the back of the throat until the larynx came into view on a computer monitor. The speech-pathologist examined the status of the vocal folds in terms of vocal fold edge, glottic closure, phase symmetry, symmetry of vibration, amplitude of vibration and mucosal wave. Individuals with any kind of vocal fold pathology would have been eliminated from the study, however all participants, included in this study, appeared to have healthy vocal folds during the laryngeal screening. Experimental Procedure Flow charts, which explain the sequence of recordings and training in the experimental and control group, are located in Figures 2 and 3. The pre-training, training, and post-training phases for each group are described below. Experimental Group Protocol Pre-training Phase Participants in the experimental group sang three different vocalises from the book titled Marchesi Vocal Method prior to the training phase. The vocalises selected for the study were called the Practice Vocalise (Figure 4), Simple Vocalise (Figure 5), and Complex Vocalise (Figure 6). The first two vocalises (Practice and Simple Vocalises) were of similar complexity, but the third (Complex Vocalise) was more difficult. The

31 Figure 2: Experimental Group Protocol with Training in Practice Vocalises

Listen to and Sing Practice Vocalise at 72 beats/min (Record trial # 2)

Listen to and Sing Simple Vocalise at 72 beats/min (Record trial # 2)

Listen to and Sing Complex Vocalise at 72 beats/min (Record trial # 2)

Training with Practice Vocalises at speeded tempos from 80 to 132 beats/min

Listen to and Sing Practice Vocalise at 72 beats/min (Record trial # 2)

Listen to and Sing Simple Vocalise at 72 beats/min (Record trial # 2)

Listen to and Sing Complex Vocalise at 72 beats/min (Record trial # 2)

One week to ten days later Listen to and Sing Practice, Simple and Complex Vocalise at 72 beats/min (Record trial # 2 for each)

Figure 3: Control Group Protocol with no Training in Practice Vocalises

Listen to and Sing Practice Vocalise at 72 beats/min (Record trial # 2)

Listen to and Sing Simple Vocalise at 72 beats/min (Record trial # 2)

Listen to and Sing Complex Vocalise at 72 beats/min (Record trial # 2)

Watch Videotape on Vocal Hygiene

Listen to and Sing Practice Vocalise at 72 beats/min (Record trial # 2)

Listen to and Sing Simple Vocalise at 72 beats/min (Record trial # 2)

Listen to and Sing Complex Vocalise at 72 beats/min (Record trial # 2)

One week to ten days later Listen to and Sing Practice, Simple and Complex Vocalise at 72 beats/min (Record trial # 2 for each)

Figure 4. Practice Vocalise.

Figure 5. Simple Vocalise.

Figure 6. Complex Vocalise.

vocalises were recorded at a tempo of 72 beats per minute on a CD using the Sibelius software program (Sibelius Music Notation Software, UK). In the beginning, in order to familiarize the participants with the nature of the task, participants listened to the vocalise on a CD through the speakers of a Dell computer (Optiplex GX260). The CD first played one of the vocalises on the piano (using the Sibileus software program), followed by just the accompanying chords (as provided in the Marchesi text) for the vocalise. Next, the participants were asked to wear a headphone on any one ear of their preference, as wearing headphones on both ears could distort the auditory feedback and cause them to sing off-pitch. The participants were asked to listen to the vocalise played on the piano in the key of F at a tempo of 72 beats per minute through the headphone, and the volume controls were adjusted to the participant’s comfort level. Each vocalise was played to the participant before the participant was asked to sing in order to reduce or eliminate the influence of auditory learning effects on performance. The piano piece played all the notes of the vocalise so that the participant could listen to how the complete vocalise would sound. The piano piece was followed by the chords, which simply played the bass notes providing a guide to the singer. The participants would listen to the each vocalise on the piano and then sing it with the chords for a total of two trials per vocalise. Musical notes for the vocalises were placed on a stand in front of the participants which they could use as a guide. The first vocalise in the pre-training phase was the Practice Vocalise. As outlined in the previous paragraph, the CD played the vocalise on the piano first and then the chords alternately for a total of two times. Participants were instructed to listen carefully to the vocalise when played on the piano and then sing along with the chords using the vowel /a/. Recordings of each of the vocalises were made in order to analyze accuracy of pitch and tempo in the sung samples. A unidirectional Shure condenser microphone (Model C420) was placed at a distance of 1 foot from the participant’s mouth. The microphone was connected to a Sony TASCAM digital tape recorder (Model DA-P1). Of the two trials sung by the participants, only the second trial was analyzed, as the first trial was considered practice.

Following two trials with the Practice Vocalise, the participants then performed the second vocalise or the Simple Vocalise. This vocalise was of the same complexity as the Practice Vocalise, but was included in the protocol in order to analyze the transfer of learning effect (from the practiced vocalise to another vocalise of similar complexity) following a short-term training program. Once again the vocalise was played first on the piano, during which the participant would listen, and then on the chords, during which the participant would sing. After two trials, participants then performed the third vocalise or the Complex Vocalise. This vocalise was more complex than the Practice and Simple Vocalise and was included in the protocol in order to analyze transfer of learning effects to a similar, but more complex task. Participants received a 15-second pause between the Practice, Simple, and Complex Vocalise segments. Training Phase Participants in the experimental group completed the training phase using the Practice Vocalise which was introduced in the pre-training phase. The Practice Vocalise was recorded in increasing increments of 8 beats per minute. The tempo began at 80 beats per minute and ended at 132 beats per minute. These increments in tempo were used to introduce a variable practice schedule, which has proven to be effective in previous motor learning studies (see Chapter II). The CD was played such that there was a 15-second break between each shift of tempo. These breaks accounted for a distributed practice schedule, which is another practice condition proven to have positive effects on motor learning (see Chapter II). The participants were instructed to sing the vocalise two times at each tempo using the CD to guide them. The vocalises on the CD were played to the participants through the headphone on one ear and at the participants pre-determined comfort level, while the participant sang the vocalise at the desired tempo. Additionally written musical notes were provided on a handout. Participants were also allowed to have 8 oz. of water throughout the training phase, as needed. The training phase lasted approximately 15 minutes. When the training phase was completed, the participants received a 60-second break.

Post-training Phase Following the training phase, the experimental group participants completed the same exact procedures outlined in the pre-training phase for listening and recording the Practice, Simple, and Complex Vocalises. Again, each vocalise was performed in the key of F at 72 beats per minute. Control Group Protocol The pre-training phase for participants in the control group was the same as that for the experimental group. Participants in the control group sang the Practice, Simple and Complex Vocalise selected from the Marchesi Vocal Method book at the same tempo of 72 beats per minute using the vowel /a/. The same procedures were followed in regards to listening and recording trials (2 each) that were used with the experimental group. This session was followed by the training phase, during which the control group participants did not complete the training program with the Practice Vocalise. Instead, these participants watched a videotape on vocal hygiene titled Vocal Hygiene: Maintaining a Sound Voice (Weinrich, 2003), which lasted 13 minutes. Once again the post-training phase was similar to the pre-training phase, in that, the participants from the control group sang all three vocalises in key F at a tempo of 72 beats per minute using the same procedures followed in the pre-training phase. One-Week Post-Training One week to 10 days following the post-training phase, all participants reported back for a follow-up session. At this time, each participant sang the Practice, Simple and Complex Vocalises at the same tempo of 72 beats per minute using the vowel /a/, for a total of two trials each. This procedure was similar to the pre and post-training phases for both groups. Once again, only the second trial was used for analysis. This follow-up session was introduced to analyze the effects of the vocalises training after a week, and to assess if the participants were able to retain what they had learned in terms of motor learning and motor retention. Data Measurement All samples were subjectively analyzed by three expert voice performance instructors. Two of these experts were speech-language pathologists who specialized in the area of voice disorders in singers and teach voice performance privately. The other

rater was a teacher of voice performance at a university. All raters had at least 9 years of experience in the area of voice instruction. The experts were from outside of the university where the subjects study, so that teacher bias was eliminated via possible voice recognition. The recordings were analyzed using a visual analog (VA) scale to determine those samples that were sung off target with regards to tempo and frequency. The recordings were mailed to these experts on CDs, who then analyzed the pre-, post-training samples and 1-week later samples using the VA scale provided (Appendix B). The scale consisted of a 10-cm line, one end of which was anchored by the term Completely Inaccurate and the other by the term Perfect. Two such lines were provided for each sample, one to rate the pitch accuracy and the other to rate the rhythm accuracy. The raters were asked to listen to each sample three times and then mark an X at a location on the scale he/she thought best fitted the singer’s performance for pitch on the first scale and tempo on the second scale. A total of three CDs were sent to each rater, one CD for each of the 3 vocalises types. All samples were randomized in regards to participant and order of trials such that it included the pre-, post-, and 1-week later samples for all 12 participants in a random order. In addition, each CD had its first sample titled “Perfect Vocalise,” which was an example of a perfectly sung vocalise. This sample was sung by an expert in the area of voice and could be used as a guide by the expert voice raters. Statistical Analysis Pearson product-moment correlations were performed in order to first analyze the inter-rater reliability between the three expert raters. Next, a similar correlation was utilized to analyze the intra-rater reliability (i.e., the consistency with which each individual raters rated the samples). The ratings from the 3 raters were averaged for each participant and were used to determine the change in accuracy with regards to pitch and rhythm accuracy for the performances of the Practice, Simple and Complex Vocalises in both the experimental and control group over the three time periods (pre-training, post-training, and one-week post-training). Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to analyze the mean ratings for these measures.

CHAPTER 1V Results Descriptive Statistics The present study required expert voice raters to analyze the singing samples and rate them perceptually on a visual analog scale for pitch and rhythm accuracy. The means for the samples rated by these experts have been provided in Tables 3 and 4 for both experimental and control groups. In addition, bar graphs have been provided (Figure 7 to Figure 12) which provide a visual comparison of the average ratings between the experimental and control groups (in pre-training, post-training, and 1-week post- training conditions) for all three vocalises. The raw data (i.e., ratings from each rater) is displayed in Appendix B for pitch accuracy and Appendix C for rhythm accuracy. Table 3 Pitch Accuracy Averages on a 100 pt Visual Analog Scale ______Practice Vocalise Group Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD ______

Experimental 45.38 17.61 51.77 17.15 58.66 6.45

Control 42.71 16.90 48.16 7.75 45.05 8.35 ______Simple Vocalise Group Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD ______

Experimental 40.44 25.15 41.60 18.85 39.99 20.67

Control 28.66 21.93 28.38 26.66 54.27 15.71

______Complex Vocalise Group Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD ______

Experimental 38.99 37.99 43.94 33.38 49.94 39.10

Control 17.72 31.81 28.44 26.83 39.44 30.53 ______

Figure 7. Mean Pitch Accuracy Scores for the Practice Vocalise.

100 90 80 e

r 70 o

c 60 Experimental Group S

e 50 Control Group ag 40 er

v 30 A 20 10 0 Pre-training Post-training 1-Wk Post- training Testing time

Figure 8. Mean Pitch Accuracy Scores for the Simple Vocalise.

100 90 80 e

r 70 o

c 60 Experimental Group S

e 50 Control Group ag 40 er

v 30 A 20 10 0 Pre-training Post-training 1-Wk Post- training Testing Time

Figure 9. Mean Pitch Accuracy Scores for the Complex Vocalise.

100 90 80 e

r 70 o

c 60 Experimental Group S

e 50 Control Group ag 40 er

v 30 A 20 10 0 Pre-training Post-training 1-Wk Post- training Testing Time

Table 4 Rhythm Accuracy Averages on a 100 pt Visual Analog Scale ______Practice Vocalise Group Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD ______

Experimental 52.32 24.74 62.88 12.39 59.71 15.25

Control 51.83 11.04 52.10 11.15 39.82 10.05 ______Simple Vocalise Group Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD ______

Experimental 41.16 23.34 44.16 13.96 40.33 18.20

Control 33.83 19.98 38.88 15.92 59.49 16.72 ______Complex Vocalise Group Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD ______

Experimental 47.27 38.66 50.60 17.63 61.60 23.90

Control 28.27 28.37 40.77 19.80 47.55 23.35 ______

Figure 10. Mean Rhythm Accuracy Scores for the Practice Vocalise.

100 90 80 e

r 70 o

c 60 Experimental Group S

e 50 Control Group ag 40 er

v 30 A 20 10 0 Pre-training Post-training 1-Wk Post- training Testing Time

Figure 11. Mean Rhythm Accuracy Scores for the Simple Vocalise.

100 90 80 e

r 70 o

c 60 Experimental Group S

e 50 Control Group ag 40 er

v 30 A 20 10 0 Pre-training Post-training 1-Wk Post- training Testing Time

Figure 12. Mean Rhythm Accuracy Scores for the Complex Vocalise.

100 90 80 e

r 70 o

c 60 Experimental Group S

e 50 Control Group ag 40 er

v 30 A 20 10 0 Pre-training Post-training 1-Wk Post- training Testing Time

Inferential Statistics Inter-rater Reliability A Pearson product-moment correlation was performed between the three expert raters for pitch and rhythm accuracy. The results of the test for pitch accuracy are displayed in Table 5. A poor correlation is demonstrated between Rater 1 and Rater 2, as is the correlation between Rater 2 and 3. However, Rater 1 and Rater 3 displayed a moderate degree of correlation. The results of the test for rhythm accuracy in Table 6, revealed a poor degree of correlation between all three raters. Table 5 Person Product-Moment Correlation between the Three Expert Raters for Pitch Accuracy ______Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 r r r Rater 1 1.000 0.330 0.515 Rater 2 0.330 1.000 0.375 Rater 3 0.515 0.375 1.000 ______

Table 6 Person Product-Moment Correlation between the Three Expert Raters for Rhythm Accuracy ______Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 r r r

Rater 1 1.000 0.082 0.204 Rater 2 0.082 1.000 0.384 Rater 3 0.204 0.384 1.000 ______

Intra-rater Reliability In order to assess the intra-rater reliability, all three raters were provided with 4 repeated singing samples which were randomly selected from the existing pool of samples and repeated at the end of each CD. The raters were unaware of the presence of and/or order of these repeated samples. Thus the raters rated these samples as a part of the general rating protocol and in the same manner that they rated all other samples. This repetition of samples was introduced to assess the intra-rater reliability of each rater (i.e., to analyze the consistency of their ratings). With regards to intra-rater reliability the results of the analysis demonstrated that Rater 2 displayed a high degree of correlation in the pitch accuracy task and a moderate degree of correlation in the rhythm accuracy task. Rater 1 displayed a high degree of correlation for both pitch and rhythm accuracy, while Rater 3 showed only a poor degree of correlation for the same. The following table displays the intra-rater correlations for both pitch and rhythm accuracy tasks.

Table 7 Intra-rater Reliability for Pitch and Rhythm Accuracy ______Pitch Rhythm r r Rater 1 0.714 0.671 Rater 2 0.925 0.674 Rater 3 0.248 0.410 ______

A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was completed to analyze the effect of the vocalises training session on the performance of all three vocalises pre- and post-training as well as 1-week later. The dependent variable was the average of the scores by the 3 expert raters on the visual analog (VA) scale. The within-subject factors were the time (i.e., pre-training, post-training, and 1-wk post training) and the vocal exercises (i.e., Practice, Simple, and Complex Vocalises). The between-subjects factor were the two groups (i.e., the experimental and control). Separate ANOVAs were performed for pitch accuracy and rhythm accuracy. With regards to the ANOVA performed for pitch accuracy, the results for the within-subjects analysis revealed that there was no significant main effect for time F(2, 20) = 1.477, p = 0.252, nor was there a significant interaction for time by group, F(2, 20) = 0.485, p = 0.623. Also, there was no interaction for exercise by group, F(2, 20) = 0.656, p = 0.530. The between-subjects analysis revealed no main interaction between the two groups, F(1,10) = 0.847, p = 0.379. With regards to the ANOVA performed for rhythm accuracy, the results for the within-subjects analysis revealed no significant main effect for time F(2, 20) = 1.008, p = 0.383 and no interaction for time by group, F(2, 20) = 1.065, p = 0.363. There was also no interaction for exercise by group, F(2, 20) = 0.356, p = 0.705. The between-subjects analysis for rhythm accuracy revealed no main interaction between the two groups, F(1,10) = 1.316, p = 0.278. Hence, with regards to both, pitch and rhythm accuracy, no significant differences were found between the experimental and control groups.

Secondary Analysis The Pearson-product correlation performed to determine inter-rater reliability (displayed in Table 5) between the three expert raters showed a stronger correlation between Rater 1 and Rater 3 for pitch accuracy, as compared to Rater 2. Table 6 shows a poor inter-rater reliability between all 3 raters for rhythm accuracy. Based on this information, the author analyzed the ratings between Rater 1 and Rater 3 for pitch, excluding Rater 2 from the analysis. A repeated measures ANOVA was performed a second time, similar to the previous analysis, without the inclusion of the ratings from Rater 2 in the overall average for each participant. The results of this particular analysis of variance revealed no changes in the results as compared to the previous analysis. There were no significant differences between the experimental and control groups. With regards to pitch accuracy, the within-subjects analysis of variance revealed no significant main effect for time F(2, 20) = 1.574, p = 0.232 and no main effect for time by group, F(2, 20) = 0.002, p = 0.998. Also, there was no interaction for exercise by group, F(2, 20) = 0.044, p = 0.957. The between-subjects analysis revealed no significant difference between the two groups, F(1, 10) = 1.801, p = 0.209. Thus, for pitch accuracy, there was no significant difference between the experimental and control groups. Since, the inter- rater reliability between all three raters showed poor correlation for rhythmic accuracy, a secondary analysis for rhythmic accuracy was not performed.

CHAPTER V Discussion The present study was an examination of the effects of a short-term vocalise training session on the singing performance of a group of college voice majors. The primary objectives of the study were to: (a) determine if a short-term vocalise training session would increase the average accuracy of the notes and rhythm during the performance of the vocalise used in the short-term training session, (b) determine if a short-term vocalise training session with one vocalise (Practice Vocalise) would help improve pitch and rhythm performance on a similar (Simple Vocalise) and a more difficult vocalise (Complex Vocalise), and (c) determine whether, following the training session, the singers would maintain their performance on the three vocalises (i.e., carryover of motor learning) after a 1-week rest period. In the present study, the vocalise samples were rated perceptually by 3 expert voice raters using a VA scale. Two of these raters were speech-language pathologists/singing voice specialists, while one was a voice performance teacher at a university. All three raters had at least 9 years of experience in the area of remediating voice disorders and/or teaching voice performance. The results of the study indicated that there were no significant differences in the pitch and rhythm accuracy of the participants in the experimental and control group for all three vocalises when the pre- training, post-training, and 1-week post-training data points were compared. These results demonstrated that the completion of the vocalise training program by the experimental group did not significantly improve their performance on the same vocalise used in the training program (Practice Vocalise) compared to the control group that did not complete the training program. It is not surprising that there was no carryover of improved accuracy to a similar exercise (Simple Vocalise) or a more complex exercise (Complex Vocalise), as no significant improvements were noted for the Practice Vocalise. It is also not surprising that significantly improved performances were not seen at the one-week post-test data point. The average ratings of the participants are displayed in Tables 3 and 4 in Chapter IV. Visual inspection of the mean scores for pitch and rhythm accuracy indicates that the experimental group displayed an increasing trend in the average ratings from the pre-

training to the post-training data points for all three vocalises. However, it is important to note that a similar trend was seen in the results of the control group for pitch and rhythm accuracy for all three vocalises. The inferential analysis procedures results indicated that on average, the progress of the experimental group was not significant enough to differentiate it from the performance of the control group. Interestingly however, the experimental group displayed an improvement in rhythm accuracy performance (see Table 4) for the post-test condition and even for the 1-week post-training condition. The control group on the other hand demonstrated a similar performance in the pre- and post- training conditions and then a steep decline in the one-week post-test condition. The above result is the only condition which correlates with the initial premise of the present study i.e., vocalises practice improves performance on that particular vocalise. Visual inspection of the data in Tables 3 and 4 also reveals large discrepancies in the pre-training averages of the participants between the experimental and control groups. While assigning the participants to either group at the beginning of the study, attempts were made to match these individuals by age and number of years of vocal training in order to ensure that participants in both groups had matched vocal abilities. However, with the exception of the Practice Vocalise, the other 2 vocalises showed large discrepancies in the pre-test averages between the experimental and control groups. These discrepancies were evident not only for pitch accuracy, but also for the rhythm accuracy measures. Such obvious differences in vocal abilities between the groups at the pre-training data point itself could have further attributed to the lack of significant results in the post-training and 1-week post-training conditions. The inter-rater reliability for pitch accuracy in Table 5 displayed a moderate degree of correlation between Rater 1 and Rater 3, and poor correlations between Rater 1 and 2 and Rater 2 and 3. These results suggest that Rater 2 may have had a different internal reference of pitch accuracy as compared to Rater 1 and 3. Rater 2 was the voice performance instructor at a university, while Rater 1 and 3 were both speech-language pathologists working in the area of voice disorders. Hence, the ANOVA was performed for a second time, this time excluding the scores from Rater 2. Once again there were no significant differences between the experimental and control groups and no significant change in the performance on any of the three vocalises over time. Inter-rater reliability

for rhythm revealed a poor correlation between all the raters. It appeared that the 3 raters differed greatly in their judgments for rhythm accuracy. Hence, a second analysis for rhythm accuracy excluding inputs of Rater 2 would have provided results similar to the first analysis and was thus not completed. In regards to intra-rater reliability (Table 7), Rater 2 demonstrated the most consistent intra-rater reliability (i.e., a high degree of reliability for pitch accuracy and a moderate degree for rhythm accuracy), indicating that Rater 2 had a more stable internal reference of pitch and rhythm accuracy over time. Comparatively, Rater 1 had a more consistent internal reference of accuracy than Rater 3, specifically for pitch accuracy. The above findings indicated that while Rater 1 and Rater 2 (to a certain extent) judged the repeated samples similar to the first time they were presented, Rater 3 showed greater inconsistencies in rating the same samples when presented a second time. These individual discrepancies were unique to each individual and therefore could not be controlled for in the present study. Implications of the Present Study As reviewed in Chapter I, voice teachers in the 17th and 18th centuries would devote the majority of the initial training time developing the student’s perfect technique and vocal quality using vocalises. However, this training method gradually lost relevance in the present century, such that vocalises as a part of formal vocal training are a much less significant component. While some instructors do incorporate vocalises into vocal training, the amount is significantly reduced and words and songs are introduced earlier in the training process. The current study was an attempt to better understand the role of vocalises in the training process, and assess whether the loss of such training is justified in present day singing instruction methods. Motor planning literature reveals that an extensive amount of deliberate practice leads to an advanced stage of learning such that the correct movement for the task is executed with minimal errors (Shumway-Cook & Woollacott, 2001). Studies using athletes and other professionals, such as musicians, have reiterated these principles using short-term practice sessions and demonstrating further that practice drills can lead to a transfer of learning effect to other similar tasks (Magill, 1998). Due to the lack of research in the area of singing, it was thus hypothesized that regular practice with a

vocalise would improve performance not only on that particular vocalise but also on a similar and a more complex vocalise. The current study was a first attempt at better understanding the above relationship and also to associate the act of singing with motor learning. It is interesting to note that both the control and experimental groups showed a minimal improvement in performance from the pre- to post-training data points, however, this change was not significant. The results of the current study did not demonstrate that a short-term practice session with a specific vocalise resulted in a superior performance when compared to those who did not complete the training program. The results of this study indicated that a short-term practice session may not be sufficient for eliciting improvements in pitch and rhythm accuracy. It should be noted that this chapter will explore potential design and measurement concerns that may have contributed to the failure to demonstrate an improved performance with the training program. Additionally, the potential for exploring long-term practice sessions will be discussed. Perceptual Judgment and Inter/Intra-Rater Reliability Perceptual judgment of vocal quality is believed, by many professionals working in the area of voice disorders, to be an important factor in determining the severity and significance of a voice disorder (Kreiman & Gerratt, 1993, 1998). In the present study, there was a large amount of variability between the three raters’ perception of accuracy for the pitch and rhythm of the provided samples (to a greater extent) and also within individual ratings (to a smaller extent). Discussion on the topic of perceptual evaluation provided by Kreiman & Gerratt (1993, 1998, 2000) have indicated that there appears to be a great deal of inconsistency in both inter-rater and intra-rater reliability for perceptual judgment of vocal quality from one study to another. These authors evaluated various studies on perceptual ratings for voice quality and concluded that there are no models for perceptually rating the voice adequately, and also that there is no clear understanding as to what methodology would ensure appropriate inter- and intra-rater reliability scores. Based on their own research, Kreiman and Gerratt have concluded that the raters generally showed greater inconsistencies when asked to use an equal-appearing interval (EAI; likert scale) for rating purposes rather than a VA scale. Kreiman and Garret have also concluded that the rater disagreements occur due to inconsistent internal standards

and also due to inability to concentrate only on one parameter (i.e., pitch) of the vocal quality, while blocking the other vocal attributes during the rating process. In the present study, the lack of agreement between the raters’ judgments of the samples may be attributed to a variety of reasons, such as fatigue and/or attention lapses. Each rater was assigned a total of 120 samples to rate, which included 40 samples for each of the three vocalises. The expert raters were asked to listen to each sample two to three times before marking their ratings on the VA scale. As feedback, one of the expert raters of the present study stated that the rating task was a “challenge” and also that it became more difficult to concentrate on the samples after the first 20 samples. Thus, the rating process may have been perceived as taxing and time consuming for some raters, which may have led to a lack of consistency in rating the samples. The lack of agreement between the raters may also have been due to the fact that two of the expert raters were speech-language pathologists, who specialize in voice disorders, while one was a professional voice teacher at a university. This difference in occupation could also have caused a variation in the way the raters analyzed the samples. Speech-language pathologists primarily work with the persons who have voice disorders, while a university voice teacher typically works with persons who have a normal voice quality. While, both professionals strive to improve an individual’s vocal quality and health, both professionals have their own internal frame of reference for what is considered optimal and accurate which may not be in agreement with the other. Studies have revealed that listeners have a relatively unbalanced internal reference for vocal quality which is subject to frequent change, such that even highly experienced listeners tend to show large variations in their perception of voice quality (Kreiman & Gerratt, 1993). Thus, in regards to the present study, after listening to a large number of samples repeatedly, it is possible that the raters may have changed their internal frame of accuracy while rating the remainder of the samples, once again contributing to the lack of consistency among the raters. In addition to the above conditions, the use of a VA scale could have further added to the increased variability in the ratings. This scale is more commonly used by speech-language pathologists than voice teachers. The 2 speech-language pathologists who served as raters may be familiar with and use the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual

Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V), which is a tool used to perceptually judge vocal quality in terms of roughness, breathiness, pitch, loudness, and overall severity (ASHA, 2003). This rating system requires the speech-language pathologist to mark the severity of each parameter (i.e. roughness) on a 10-cm line. The same procedure was utilized in this study when the raters where asked to mark the accuracy for pitch and rhythm. For Rater 2, the university voice instructor, using a scale such as this was a potentially new task and it may have taken more time for this rater to become accustomed to the procedure. It is interesting to note that Rater 2 had a poorer correlation with Raters 1 and 3 for ratings of pitch accuracy. However, all three raters had poor correlations for the ratings of rhythm accuracy. As previously stated, other methods of rating the samples based on voice perception exist. These methods include the equal-appearing interval (EAI) scale and the direct magnitude estimation, which have been mentioned by Kreiman and Gerratt in their paper Perceptual Evaluation of Voice Quality: Review, Tutorial and a Framework for Future Research (1993). However, literature reveals that there is no single method or model of voice perception that has provided significantly reliable results in the past. The VA allowed the raters to listen to each sample and concentrate on one specific parameter for each rating. As outlined earlier, the VA provided more consistency in the ratings as compared to the EAI. Hence, the VA was selected as the rating scale of choice for the present study. Limitations Besides the above stated issues, there were other issues that the author of the present study could not control for and these could have limited the results of the study. These limitations are discussed in the following paragraphs. With regards to the distribution of time for the vocalises, the pre-training phase and the post-training phase lasted approximately 10 minutes, while the actual training phase lasted approximately 13 minutes. During the 10 minutes of the pre-training phase, all participants from both groups sang each vocalise for a total of 2 times. The process of listening to the vocalise being played on the piano and then singing it twice after that could have allowed for a limited amount of motor learning to occur. Thus, it is possible that some amount of motor learning occurred during the pre-training phase itself, and that participation in the

vocalises training session made only a minor difference, if any to motor learning for the experimental group; thus explaining why there were no significant differences between the post-training performances of the two groups. Also, all participants were asked to return 1-week to 10 days after the first session for a follow-up session. During this 1-week period, even though participants were instructed not to practice any of these vocalises at home, some participants reported that they would occasionally hum and/or sing the vocalises, because the vocalises were different and made a lasting impression. This was one factor that the author had no control over and could have altered the results of the study. Another concern for this study was that of sight-singing ability. Most participants had completed anywhere between 2 to 6 sight-singing courses, excluding two participants, one of whom had taken just one course and the other had taken no courses in sight-singing at all. In spite of this difference, almost all of the participants rated themselves to have good sight singing abilities. All participants appeared to have a high confidence level in their sight singing abilities. Table 2 in Chapter III displays the average values of the number of sight-singing courses and self-ratings for the experimental and control groups. This table clearly indicates that the experimental group had a higher mean than the control group for sight-singing courses, implying that the latter group had taken fewer courses in sight-singing. This difference in the average values between the two groups could potentially account for some of the differences seen in the pre-test ratings received by the two groups, even though the average values of the participants’ self-ratings were similar. Considering all the above limitations, the present study can be used as a base for further research, and future studies can be designed keeping these limitations in mind. Future studies will enable researchers and voice instructors to better understand the dynamics of vocalises training over longer periods of time and its effects on short and long-term singing performance. Future Directions Based on all of the limitations discussed above, there appear to be a variety of ways to expand and develop the present study. It would be interesting to study the effects of this type of training on a varied group of individuals, as compared to a homogenous

group. Further studies should not only increase the sample size, but also include men and women with different levels of singing experience (i.e., first or second year vocal majors, professional choir singers, or persons who have a keen interest in singing but have never received any professional training). In addition, the study can also include individuals who have received different styles of training instruction such as the Suzuki approach (a purely instrumental teaching method) and other forms instruction which focus on sight- singing. Such a study may provide valuable information in regards to how much of a role does the singing instruction method play in an individual’s ability to sing various vocalises. Another area that could be explored is the effect of short-term vocalises training versus long-term vocalises training. The present study utilized a short-term training protocol for about 13 minutes on a single day. Motor learning literature states that while in some limb training programs, short-term training has brought about significant changes (Shumway-Cook & Woollacott, 2001), these changes were not noted in this study. Boyce (1992) conducted a motor task study with a 5-day practice period while Baddley and Longman (1978) conducted a motor learning study with a practice period of 60 hours (see Chapter II). These studies have shown improvements in motor learning with the extended training time period. However, the present study is the first of its kind to relate motor planning and learning to the act of singing. Hence, the study was designed to target only short-term training in vocalises. In the future, it may be useful to study the effects of modified short-term training and/or long-term training, over an extended period of time and analyze whether it provides any significant results. Another limitation in the present study related to the use of subjective analysis procedures. The samples were perceptually judged by three expert raters using a VA scale. As outlined before, perceptually rating the voice quality can lead to some amount of variability and inconsistency both between and within raters. Due to these limitations, it would be interesting to define a more reliable measure to rate and analyze the samples. More specifically, an objective analysis of the samples could lead to more reliable data and results. During the objective analysis, however, the change in musical notes in the vocalises occurs quickly, creating challenges for accurate measures of frequency and the tempo for each vocalise sample, specifically for a very fast run of notes.

Conclusion The present study was the first of its kind to correlate principles of motor learning with the act of singing. Other documented studies in the area of motor learning have focused on limb and other physical movements. No significant results were obtained in the present study in regards to progress in pitch and rhythm accuracy for the three vocalises (Practice, Simple and Complex Vocalise) and no carryover was noticed after the one week rest period. However, the limitations of the study provide insight for improvement of future study designs. This study can thus form a basis for later studies and provide a beginning for future endeavors in the area of singing and motor learning.

REFERENCES Adams, J.A. (1971). A closed loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 3, 111- 150. Adams, J. A. (1987). Historical review and appraisal on the learning, retention, and transfer of Human Motor Skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 41-74. American Speech, Language, and Hearing Association [ASHA], Division 3: Voice and Voice Disorders 2003, Retrieved January 28th, 2005, from http://www.asha.org/about/membership-certification/divs/div_3.htm Annett, J., & Piech., J. (1985). The retention of a skill following distributed training. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 22, 182-186. Baddeley, A. D., & Longman, D. J. (1978). The influence of length and frequency of training session on the rate of learning to type. Ergonomics, 21, 627-635. Boytim, J. F. (2003). The Private Voice Studio Handbook. Wisconsin: Hal Leonard Corporation. Bourne, L. E., & Archer, E. J. (1956). Time continuously on target as a function of distribution of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 25-33. Boyce, B. A. (1992). Effects of assigned versus participant-set goals on skill acquisition and retention of a selected shooting task. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 220-234. Cleveland, T. F. (1991). Vocal pedagogy in the twenty-first century: Vocal exercises and profession tutelage-two essentials for every student. The National Association for Teachers of Singing Journal, 48(2), 27-28. Coffin, B. (1981). Vocal pedagogy classics: Exercise and method for singing by Manuel Garcia 1. The National Association for Teachers of Singing Journal, 38, 36-37. Coffin, B. (1982). Vocal pedagogy classics: Theoretical and practical vocal method; and ten singing lessons by Mathilde Marchesi (1826-1913). The National Association for Teachers of Singing Journal, 38(1), 44-45. Coffin, B. (1989). Historical Vocal Pedagogy Classics. Metuchen: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Colton, R.H., and Casper, J. (1996). Understanding Voice Problems: A Physiological Perspective for Diagnosis and Treatment. (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Cooke, J. F. (1921). Great Singers on the Art of Singing. Philadelphia: Theodore Presser Co., 1921. Corri, D. (1810).Corri’s Treatise on Vocal Music. London: Chappell & Co. Davis, P. & Strand, E. H. (2004). Neurophysiology of Vocal Rehabilitation. In C. Sapienza, & J. Casper, Vocal rehabilitation for medical speech-language pathology (pp. 29-67). Austin, Tex.: Pro-Ed. Edwin, R. (1990). The bach to rock connection: Vocalises revisited. The National Association for Teachers of Singing Journal, 47(1), 40. Elliot, N., Sundberg, J., & Gramming, P. (1995). What happens during vocal warm-up?. Journal of Voice, 9 (1), 37-44. Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human Performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Garcia, M. (1824). Exercises and Methods for Singing. Boosey, London: British Museum Library. Hodges, N. J., & Franks, I. A. (2002). Modeling coaching practice: The role of instruction and demonstration. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 793-811. Kreiman, J., & Gerratt, B. R. (1993). Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: Review, tutorial, and a framework for future research. Journal of Speech & Hearing Science, 36(1), 21- 41. Kreiman, J., & Gerratt, B. R. (1998). Validity if rating scale measures of voice quality. Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 104(3), 1598-1608. Kreiman, J., & Gerratt, B. R. (2000). Sources of listener disagreement in voice quality assessment. Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 108(4), 1867-1876. Marby, S. (2002). Exploring Twentieth-Century Vocal Music: A Practical Guide to Innovations in Performance and Repertoire. New York: Oxford University Press. Magill, R. A. (1998). Motor Learning: Concepts and Applications. (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. Marchesi, M. (n.d.). Marchesi Vocal Method. New York: G. Schirmer, Inc.

McCracken, H. D., & Stelmach, G. E. (1977). A test of the schema theory of discrete motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 9, 193-201. Miller, R. (1996). On the Art of Singing. New York: Oxford University Press. Miller, R. (2002). Sotto voce: (1) A performer meets the three graces and (2) Balancing technique and literature. Journal of Singing, 58(4), 317-320. Miller, R. (2004). Solutions for Singers. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Monahan, B. J. (1978). The Art of Singing: A Compendium of Thoughts on Singing Published Between 1777 and 1927. Metuchen: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Motel, T., Fisher, K. V., & Leydon, C. (2003). Vocal warm-up increases phonation threshold pressure in soprano singers at high pitch. Journal of Voice, 17(2), 160-167. Myer, E. D. (1897). Position and Action in Singing. A Study of the True Conditions of Tone; a Solution of Automatic Breath-control. (2nd ed.). New York: E. S. Werner. Nielsen, G. (1975). A New Guide To Good Singing. Canada: The Avondale Press. Palmer, C., & Meyer, R. K. (2000). Conceptual and motor learning in music performance. American Psychological Society, 11(1), 63-68. Perry, D. W., Zatorre, R. J., Petrides, M., Alivisatos, B., Myer, E., & Evans, A. C. (1999). Localization of cerebral activity during simple singing. Neuroreport, 10, 3979-3984. Sabol, J. W., Lee, L., & Stemple, J. C. (1995). The value of vocal function exercises in the practice regimen of singers. Journal of Voice, 9(1), 27-36. Schmidt, R.A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225-260. Schmidt, R.A. (1988). Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis. (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 482-489. Schmidt, R. A. & Lee, T. D. (1999). Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis. IL: Human Kinetics. Seidler, R. D. (2004). Multiple motor learning experiences enhance motor adaptability. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(1), 65-73.

Shea, J. B., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 179-187. Shumway-Cook, A. & Woollacott, M. H. (2001). Motor Control: Theory and Practical Applications. (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Stemple, J. C., Glaze, L. E., & Klaben, B, G. (2000). Clinical Voice Pathology: Theory and Management. (3rd ed.). San Diego: Singular Publishing Group. Taylor, D. C. (1914). Self-help for Singers. New York: H. W. Gray. Titze, I. (1993). Warm-up exercises. The National Association for Teachers of Singing Journal, 49(5), 21. Titze, I. R. (1993). Vocal Fold Physiology: Frontiers in Basic Science. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc. Van den Berg, J.W. (1958). Myoelastic-aerodynamic theory of voice production. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1, 227-244. Ware, C. (1998). Basics of Vocal Pedagogy: The Foundations and Process of Singing. Boston Massachusetts: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc. Weinrich, B (2003). Vocal Hygiene: Maintaining a Sound Voice. Gainesville, Florida: Communicare Publishing. W. LeBorgne, personal communication, 2004. Zemlin, W. R. (1998). Speech and Hearing Science: Anatomy and Physiology. (4th ed.). MA: Needham Heights.

Appendix A Health Questionnaire Subject # ______

1) List all surgeries you have had within the last 5 years.

2) Are you being treated right now for any medical conditions? If so, what?

3) Are you bothered by any of the following? Please indicate with a check mark.

__Hoarseness __Fatigue (voice tires or changes quality after speaking for a short period of time) __Pitch (either too high or too low during speaking) __Breathiness __Tickling or choking sensation __Pain in the throat __Pitch breaks __Voice cuts out briefly

4) Have you had a recent cold or flu? Y/N

5) Have you have smoked tobacco products or other drugs? Y/N If you used to smoke, for how many years and when did you stop?

6) Do you have a neuromuscular disorder? Y/N

7) Amount of high school vocal training that you have received so far: (0-6months), (7-12months), (12-18months), (18-24months), (24-30months), (31-36months), (37-42months), >42months ______

8) Amount of college level vocal training you have received so far: (0-6months), (7-12months), (12-18months), (18-24months), (24-30months), (31-36months), (37-42months), >42months ______

Appendix B

Pitch Accuracy Ratings from Raters for Individual Participants

Pitch Accuracy for Experimental Group using Practice Vocalise on 100 pt Visual Analog Scale ______Participant Pre-Training Post-training Post 1-week ______

Participant 1 Rater 1 15 6 93 Rater 2 0 27 28 Rater 3 48 37 45 Average 21 23.33 55.33

Participant 2 Rater 1 59 50 16 Rater 2 70 82 56 Rater 3 48 84 77 Average 59 72 49.66

Participant 3 Rater 1 32 56 82 Rater 2 20 29 31 Rater 3 39 74 91 Average 30.33 53 68

Participant 4 Rater 1 21 38 74 Rater 2 35 72 47 Rater 3 67 67 61 Average 41 59 60.66

Participant 5 Rater 1 19 25 23 Rater 2 91 64 51 Rater 3 89 96 93 Average 66.33 61.66 55.66

Participant 6 Rater 1 51 17 56 Rater 2 40 19 60 Rater 3 73 89 72 Average 54.66 41.66 62.66 ______

Pitch Accuracy for Control Group using Practice Vocalise on 100pt Visual Analog Scale ______Participant Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week ______Participant 1 Rater 1 23 65 73 Rater 2 82 71 40 Rater 3 65 51 46 Average 56.66 62.33 53

Participant 2 Rater 1 78 72 60 Rater 2 64 21 57 Rater 3 36 48 40 Average 59.33 47 52.33

Participant 3 Rater 1 50 7 37 Rater 2 24 75 9 Rater 3 86 72 54 Average 53.33 51.33 33.33

Participant 4 Rater 1 0 20 23 Rater 2 31 87 76 Rater 3 16 24 39 Average 15.66 43.66 46

Participant 5 Rater 1 6 25 91 Rater 2 78 76 25 Rater 3 31 26 32 Average 38.33 42.33 49.33

Participant 6 Rater 1 19 12 21 Rater 2 29 69 41 Rater 3 51 46 47 Average 33 42.33 36.33 ______

Pitch Accuracy for Experimental Group using Simple Vocalise on 100 pt Visual Analog Scale ______Participant Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week ______Participant 1 Rater 1 2 16 87 Rater 2 22 4 3 Rater 3 1 66 51 Average 8.33 29.33 47

Participant 2 Rater 1 85 85 2 Rater 2 61 24 72 Rater 3 16 23 4 Average 54 44 26

Participant 3 Rater 1 96 79 69 Rater 2 6 2 39 Rater 3 76 80 66 Average 59.33 53.66 58

Participant 4 Rater 1 0 5 3 Rater 2 27 60 9 Rater 3 4 1 2 Average 10.33 22 4.66

Participant 5 Rater 1 7 71 87 Rater 2 2 69 9 Rater 3 6 76 71 Average 5 72 55.66

Participant 6 Rater 1 86 28 78 Rater 2 12 3 2 Rater 3 35 55 66 Average 44.33 28.66 48.66 ______

Pitch Accuracy for Control Group using Simple Vocalise on 100 pt Visual Analog Scale

______Participant Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week ______

Participant 1 Rater 1 31 39 65 Rater 2 85 16 95 Rater 3 66 44 66 Average 60.66 33 75.33

Participant 2 Rater 1 0 4 79 Rater 2 3 15 88 Rater 3 2 2 36 Average 1.66 7 67.66

Participant 3 Rater 1 51 85 12 Rater 2 16 85 96 Rater 3 70 50 30 Average 45.66 73.33 46

Participant 4 Rater 1 2 2 0 Rater 2 57 2 90 Rater 3 12 9 7 Average 23.66 4.33 32.33

Participant 5 Rater 1 2 5 28 Rater 2 19 17 72 Rater 3 10 11 41 Average 10.33 11 47

Participant 6 Rater 1 22 60 62 Rater 2 38 9 76 Rater 3 30 56 34 Average 30 41.66 57.33 ______

Pitch Accuracy for Experimental Group using Complex Vocalise on 100 pt Visual Analog Scale ______Participant Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week ______

Participant 1 Rater 1 86 82 99 Rater 2 59 83 79 Rater 3 60 58 44 Average 68.33 74.33 74

Participant 2 Rater 1 7 15 6 Rater 2 2 10 67 Rater 3 8 65 22 Average 5.66 30 31.66

Participant 3 Rater 1 95 91 98 Rater 2 99 88 93 Rater 3 82 68 68 Average 92 82.33 86.33

Participant 4 Rater 1 0 1 0 Rater 2 1 0 2 Rater 3 1 1 1 Average 0.66 0.66 1

Participant 5 Rater 1 9 17 94 Rater 2 68 83 98 Rater 3 88 83 84 Average 55 61 92

Participant 6 Rater 1 9 14 18 Rater 2 12 12 12 Rater 3 16 20 14 Average 12.33 15.33 14.66 ______

Pitch Accuracy for Control Group using Complex Vocalise on 100 pt Visual Analog Scale ______Participant Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week ______

Participant 1 Rater 1 8 85 95 Rater 2 2 22 72 Rater 3 30 55 35 Average 13.33 54 67.33

Participant 2 Rater 1 5 0 21 Rater 2 2 35 24 Rater 3 5 31 13 Average 4 22 19.33

Participant 3 Rater 1 1 1 8 Rater 2 0 2 1 Rater 3 5 12 11 Average 2 5 6.66

Participant 4 Rater 1 0 3 3 Rater 2 0 0 26 Rater 3 1 19 2 Average 0.33 7.33 10.33

Participant 5 Rater 1 11 9 77 Rater 2 2 14 65 Rater 3 1 16 37 Average 4.66 13 59.66

Participant 6 Rater 1 91 82 90 Rater 2 94 75 75 Rater 3 61 51 55 Average 82 69.33 73.33 ______

Appendix C

Rhythm Accuracy Ratings from Raters for Individual Participants

Rhythm Accuracy for Experimental Group using Practice Vocalise on 100 pt Visual Analog Scale ______Participant Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week ______

Participant 1 Rater 1 28 78 27 Rater 2 0 38 21 Rater 3 40 22 44 Average 22.66 46 30.66

Participant 2 Rater 1 57 65 68 Rater 2 88 83 70 Rater 3 43 86 77 Average 62.66 78 71.66

Participant 3 Rater 1 10 48 76 Rater 2 34 37 32 Rater 3 35 81 91 Average 26.33 55.33 66.33

Participant 4 Rater 1 33 85 76 Rater 2 35 75 68 Rater 3 70 68 64 Average 46 76 69.33

Participant 5 Rater 1 65 17 22 Rater 2 89 80 50 Rater 3 91 95 95 Average 81.66 64 55.66

Participant 6 Rater 1 93 57 53 Rater 2 59 27 68 Rater 3 72 90 73 Average 74.66 58 64.66 ______

Rhythm Accuracy for Control Group using Practice Vocalise on100 pt Visual Analog Scale ______Participant Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week ______

Participant 1 Rater 1 71 8 58 Rater 2 72 72 25 Rater 3 68 51 51 Average 70.33 43.66 44.66

Participant 2 Rater 1 37 39 3 Rater 2 63 22 67 Rater 3 38 59 49 Average 46 40 39.66

Participant 3 Rater 1 47 13 16 Rater 2 26 76 20 Rater 3 87 75 58 Average 53.33 54.66 31.33

Participant 4 Rater 1 71 71 42 Rater 2 17 84 77 Rater 3 32 22 42 Average 40 59 53.66

Participant 5 Rater 1 36 10 3 Rater 2 90 85 29 Rater 3 46 42 45 Average 57.33 45.66 25.66

Participant 6 Rater 1 23 86 33 Rater 2 61 68 38 Rater 3 48 55 61 Average 44 69.66 44 ______

Rhythm Accuracy for Experimental Group using Simple Vocalise on 100 pt Visual Analog Scale ______Participant Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week ______

Participant 1 Rater 1 76 93 47 Rater 2 20 15 3 Rater 3 13 70 75 Average 36.33 59.33 41.66

Participant 2 Rater 1 86 3 13 Rater 2 75 34 71 Rater 3 36 43 19 Average 65.66 26.66 34.33

Participant 3 Rater 1 97 80 89 Rater 2 6 4 54 Rater 3 79 72 67 Average 60.66 52 70

Participant 4 Rater 1 0 3 24 Rater 2 45 73 9 Rater 3 5 5 7 Average 16.66 27 13.33

Participant 5 Rater 1 2 22 36 Rater 2 3 68 6 Rater 3 29 68 76 Average 11.33 52.66 39.33

Participant 6 Rater 1 91 89 51 Rater 2 33 4 9 Rater 3 45 49 70 Average 56.33 47.33 43.33 ______

Rhythm Accuracy for Control Group using Simple Vocalise on 100 pt Visual Analog Scale ______Participant Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week ______

Participant 1 Rater 1 16 71 44 Rater 2 84 9 93 Rater 3 71 63 66 Average 57 47.66 67.66

Participant 2 Rater 1 2 23 39 Rater 2 3 28 88 Rater 3 4 12 47 Average 3 21 58

Participant 3 Rater 1 43 75 85 Rater 2 24 85 93 Rater 3 62 66 31 Average 31.33 43 75.33

Participant 4 Rater 1 75 77 59 Rater 2 66 3 88 Rater 3 42 8 13 Average 53.66 49.66 31

Participant 5 Rater 1 16 15 34 Rater 2 30 25 78 Rater 3 45 24 11 Average 23.33 17 51.33

Participant 6 Rater 1 54 89 92 Rater 2 17 22 75 Rater 3 33 54 54 Average 34.66 55 73.66 ______

Rhythm Accuracy for Experimental Group using Complex Vocalise on 100 pt Visual Analog Scale ______Participant Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week ______

Participant 1 Rater 1 84 75 34 Rater 2 63 81 79 Rater 3 59 43 36 Average 68.66 66.33 49.66

Participant 2 Rater 1 74 75 73 Rater 2 3 8 74 Rater 3 23 69 40 Average 33.33 50.66 62.33

Participant 3 Rater 1 96 60 98 Rater 2 94 86 93 Rater 3 82 53 72 Average 90.66 66.33 87.66

Participant 4 Rater 1 0 93 94 Rater 2 2 4 2 Rater 3 1 7 1 Average 1 34.66 32.33

Participant 5 Rater 1 92 14 91 Rater 2 70 87 98 Rater 3 85 83 87 Average 82.33 61.33 92

Participant 6 Rater 1 7 42 96 Rater 2 4 10 14 Rater 3 12 21 27 Average 7.66 24.33 45.66 ______

Rhythm Accuracy for Complex Group using Complex Vocalise on 100 pt Visual Analog Scale ______Participant Pre-training Post-training Post 1-week ______

Participant 1 Rater 1 86 58 93 Rater 2 1 32 80 Rater 3 18 78 36 Average 35 56 69.66

Participant 2 Rater 1 9 0 84 Rater 2 2 53 32 Rater 3 10 30 27 Average 7 27.66 47.66

Participant 3 Rater 1 5 30 78 Rater 2 1 2 1 Rater 3 14 12 17 Average 6.66 14.66 32

Participant 4 Rater 1 21 83 5 Rater 2 2 0 17 Rater 3 4 26 9 Average 9 36.33 10.33

Participant 5 Rater 1 91 81 90 Rater 2 2 13 72 Rater 3 3 26 52 Average 32 40 71.33

Participant 6 Rater 1 85 82 21 Rater 2 91 75 76 Rater 3 64 53 66 Average 80 70 54.33 ______