Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Summary: Objectives. The purpose of this study was to determine how use of the vocal facilitating technique,
chewing, affected the phonation of speech-language pathology (SLP) students.
Study Design. A pretest-posttest randomized control group design was used.
Methods. Twenty-seven healthy female SLP students were randomly assigned into either an experimental group or a
control group. The experimental group practiced chewing exercises across 18 weeks, whereas the control group received
no vocal facilitating techniques. Both groups completed pre- and post- objective voice assessment measures (aerodynamic measurement, acoustic analysis, voice range profile, and Dysphonia Severity Index). Differences between preand post-data were compared between the experimental and control group using an independent sample t test.
Results. Compared to the control group, chewing resulted in a significant decrease in jitter and noise-to-harmonic ratio (NHR), a significant increase in fundamental frequency (fo), a significant expansion of the voice range profile, and a
significant increase in Dysphonia Severity Index (DSI). Shimmer and maximum phonation time (MPT) were not significantly different between groups.
Conclusions. The results of this pilot study suggest that the vocal facilitating technique, chewing, may improve
objective vocal measures in healthy female SLP students.
Key Words: ChewingVoiceFacilitating techniqueEffectivenessPhonationSpeech-language pathology students
DysphoniaObjective vocal measuresPilot study.
INTRODUCTION
The vocal facilitating technique, chewing, was first described
by Froeschels1 in 1943. He based the technique on the observation that someone can chew and speak at the same time.
According to the author, chewing and speaking must be somewhat identical because both functions require the same muscles
and nerves.2 In 1956, Beebe3 confirmed Froeschels observations and described voiced chewing as an inborn and intuitive
behavior. Voiced chewing refers to the raw material used
instinctively by the aboriginal human inhabitants of the earth.2
It serves the dual purpose of supporting life (eating) and oral
communication (speech).3 Because of etiquette, the voice has
not been used in conjunction with chewing food for thousands
of years. Despite this, voicing while chewing can still be easily
accomplished by individuals.2
The most convincing support of voiced chewing as an inborn
and intuitive behavior is found in clinical experience. A natural
behavior such as chewing may facilitate improved vocal production4 through relaxation of the vocal tract5 and regulation
of the basic vocal pitch.6 According to Weiss and Beebe,7 chewing also improves coordination between respiration and phonation. Froeschels1,3 described improved vocal quality during
chewing aloud in individuals with vocal fold paresis, cyst, and
Accepted for publication June 29, 2015.
From the *Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, Ghent University,
Ghent, Belgium; and the yDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Ghent University, Ghent,
Belgium.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Iris Meerschman, Department of
Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, University Hospital, 2P1, De Pintelaan 185,
9000 Ghent, Belgium. E-mail: Iris.Meerschman@Ugent.be
Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, pp. 1-5
0892-1997/$36.00
2015 The Voice Foundation
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.06.016
Iris Meerschman, et al
TABLE 1.
Content of the Chewing Training Sessions Based on the Procedure Outlined by Boone et al.
Session
1
3, 4
5, 6
7, 8
Content
Education and counseling
Creating awareness of the students mandibular movements while speaking (visual
feedback: mirror)
Demonstration of the facilitating technique chewing by the experimenters
Imitation and familiarization by the subjects (visual feedback: mirror)
Open-mouth chewing without phonation
Chewing with phonation of the sound njamnjam
Chewing with phonation of nonsense words (eg, ah-la-met-erah, wan-da-pan-da)
Chewing with phonation of automatic sequences: counting, days of the week
Chewing with phonation of words: monosyllabic, polysyllabic
Chewing with phonation of phrases
Chewing with phonation of sentences
Chewing while reading texts
Phonation of sentences and texts with reduced chewing
Spontaneous speech with adequate oral openness and mandibular movements
Statistical analysis
SPSS Version 22 (SPSS Corporation, Chicago, IL) was used for
the statistical analysis of the data. All analyses were conducted
at a 0.05.
Voice questionnaire. A chi-square test of independence was
used to verify if there were differences between the experimental and control group regarding vocal complaints and risk
factors.
Objective vocal measures. The differences between preand post-data were measured for each subject. Normality of
these differences was verified using a QQ-plot and a ShapiroWilk test.21 Because all data were normally distributed, an independent sample t test was used to compare the results of
the experimental and control group.
RESULTS
Voice questionnaire
The results of the questionnaire about vocal complaints and risk
factors are presented in Table 2. Occurrence of the vocal complaints vocal fatigue, decreased vocal quality in the morning, laryngeal irritations, and decreased breath support
was not significantly different between the experimental and
control group. Significantly higher percentages of hoarseness (40.6%; c2(1) 4.464; P 0.035) and decreased vocal
range (30.8%; c2(1) 5.057; P 0.025) were found in the
control group versus the experimental group.
Occurrence of the vocal risk factors vocal abuse, nasal
airway obstructions, smoking, reflux, and allergy
was not significantly different between the experimental and
control group. A significantly higher percentage of stress
(40.6%; c2(1) 4.464; P 0.035) was found in the control
group versus the experimental group.
Objective vocal measures
Table 3 summarizes the results of the objective vocal measures
at pre- and post-condition. Compared to the control group,
chewing resulted in a significant decrease in the acoustic measures jitter (P 0.007) and NHR (P 0.048), a significant increase in the acoustic measure fo (P 0.049), a significant
expansion of the voice range profile (I-low [P 0.044],
I-high [P 0.033], F-low [P 0.048], F-high [P 0.018]),
and a significant increase in DSI score (P 0.002). No differences were found between the experimental and control group
for the aerodynamic measure MPT (P 0.791) and the acoustic
measure shimmer (P 0.202).
Figure 1 represents the changes in DSI before and after
18 weeks of chewing in the experimental group, and before
and after the same time span without facilitating techniques
in the control group. An increase of 2.3 in the experimental
group was significantly higher than the difference (0.6)
measured in the control group.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this pilot study was to determine how use of the
vocal facilitating technique, chewing, affected the phonation of
healthy female SLP students. A positive effect on the SLP students vocal capacities was hypothesized because, according to
the literature,18 chewing may facilitate a more natural vocal
production through relaxation of the vocal tract, regulation of
the basic vocal pitch and better coordination between
respiration and phonation.
The hypothesis that vocal function would increase via the
chewing facilitating technique has been supported by the significantly decreased acoustic voice measures jitter and NHR, the
expanded voice range profile (I-low, I-high, F-low, F-high),
and the increased objective measure of vocal quality (DSI) in
the experimental group compared with the control group. The
DSI increased from 0.6 (44%) before chewing to +1.7 (67%)
after chewing, which indicates a 23% improvement as measured
by the index. Similarly, fo significantly increased in the experimental group relative to controls. A possible explanation for
this increase may be that chewing facilitated subjects to speak
TABLE 2.
Percentage of Participants Having Vocal Complaints and Percentage of Participants Exposed to Vocal Risk Factors Based on
the European Study Group on Voice Disorders Voice Assessment Protocol
Vocal complaints and risk factors
c2
P Value
35.7 (5/14)
28.6 (4/14)
28.6 (4/14)
53.8 (7/13)
69.2 (9/13)
38.5 (5/13)
0.898
4.464
0.297
0.343
0.035*
0.586
0 (0/14)
14.3 (2/14)
14.3 (2/14)
30.8 (4/13)
46.2 (6/13)
46.2 (6/13)
5.057
3.283
3.283
0.025*
0.070
0.070
71.4 (10/14)
35.7 (5/14)
50.0 (7/14)
57.1 (8/14)
42.9 (6/14)
35.7 (5/14)
0 (0/14)
7.1 (1/14)
42.9 (6/14)
28.6 (4/14)
92.3 (12/13)
69.2 (9/13)
69.2 (9/13)
30.8 (4/13)
51.5 (8/13)
46.2 (6/13)
0 (0/14)
23.1 (3/13)
30.8 (4/13)
69.2 (9/13)
1.947
0.163
3.033
0.082
1.033
0.310
1.899
0.168
0.942
0.332
0.304
0.581
No smokers
1.356
0.244
0.422
0.516
4.464
0.035*
Vocal complaints
Vocal fatigue
Hoarseness
Decreased vocal quality in the
morning
Decreased vocal range
Laryngeal irritations
Decreased breath support
Risk factors
Vocal abuse
Shouting
Overpassing noise
Member youth organization
Throat clearing
Nasal airway obstructions
Smoking
Reflux
Allergy
Stress
chewing, the fo (226.2 Hz) was situated further from the mean
norm for female adults (212 Hz; but within the normal range
of 167258 Hz).22 The assumption that chewing improves
TABLE 3.
Comparison of the Differences in Pre- and Post- Objective Vocal Measures Between the Experimental Group and the
Control Group
Experimental Group
Parameters
Control Group
Pre
Post
Difference
Pre Post
Pre
Post
Difference
Pre Post
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
0.6 (4)
22.5 (8.1)
21.5 (5.7)
Aerodynamic
MPT (s)
17.6 (5.6)
Acoustic analysis
217.8 (18.1)
fo (Hz)
Jitter (%)
2 (1.1)
Shimmer (%)
4.8 (1.2)
NHR
0.13 (0.02)
Voice range profile
I-low (dB)
63.1 (3.1)
I-high (dB)
99.7 (6.8)
F-low (Hz)
173.9 (24.9)
F-high (Hz)
661.1 (173.5)
DSI
0.6 (2.3)
17 (4.1)
1 (4.2)
P Value
0.791
226.2 (14.1)
1.2 (0.6)
4.6 (1.2)
0.12 (0.02)
+8.4 (15.3)
0.8 (0.9)
0.2 (1.7)
0.01 (0.02)
218.7 (28.4)
1.6 (0.7)
4.6 (1.1)
0.13 (0.02)
209.7 (13.1)
2 (0.9)
5.2 (1.5)
0.14 (0.02)
9 (27.4)
+0.4 (1.2)
+0.6 (1.5)
+0.01 (0.03)
0.049*
0.007*
0.202
0.048*
60.1 (2.5)
107.6 (3.9)
159.5 (24.9)
777.6 (168.5)
1.7 (1.5)
3 (3.6)
+7.9 (6.4)
14.4 (13.2)
+116.5 (145.5)
+2.3 (2.3)
60.6 (3.5)
103.4 (6.6)
173.5 (15.3)
644.5 (145.1)
1.1 (2.1)
60.3 (1.9)
106.3 (3.9)
170.9 (7.5)
638.8 (172.4)
0.5 (2)
0.3 (3)
+2.9 (5)
2.6 (16.4)
5.7 (97.3)
0.6 (2.1)
0.044*
0.033*
0.048*
0.018*
0.002*
Iris Meerschman, et al
3
2
DSI
1
Experimental group
Control group
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this pilot study suggest that the facilitating technique chewing may improve objective vocal measures in
healthy female SLP students. The extent to which the chewing
technique may be useful in improving voice measures in the
presence of vocal pathology awaits further study.
-1
-2
REFERENCES
-3
pre
post
FIGURE 1. The changes in DSI before and after 18 weeks of chewing technique (experimental group) and before and after the same time
span without facilitating techniques (control group).