Whistle Register

THE INFLUENCE OF WHISTLE REGISTER PHONATION EXERCISES
IN CONDITIONING THE SECOND PASSAGGIO
OF THE FEMALE SINGING VOICE
by
Allison Ruth Holmes-Bendixen
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the
Doctor of Philosophy degree in Music
in the Graduate College of
The University of Iowa
August 2013
Thesis Supervisors: Associate Professor Eileen M. Finnegan

Associate Professor Rachel A. Joselson
UMI Number: 3595108
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3595108
Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Copyright by
ALLISON RUTH HOLMES-BENDIXEN
2013
All Rights Reserved

Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
_______________________
PH.D. THESIS
_______________
This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of
Allison Ruth Holmes-Bendixen
has been approved by the Examining Committee

for the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree in Music at the August 2013 graduation.
Thesis Committee: ___________________________________

Eileen M. Finnegan, Thesis Supervisor
___________________________________
Rachel A. Joselson, Thesis Supervisor
___________________________________
Christine Getz
___________________________________
John R. Muriello
___________________________________
Stephen Swanson
To my family:
My dad, the best teacher I’ve ever had, who taught me the value of hard work and
exemplifies all the qualities of the mentor I someday hope to be;
My mom, my role model, who encouraged me to dream and continues to support me in
every endeavor;
Gretchen, my lifelong cheerleader, whose talent and brilliance inspire me to keep up;
&
Conrad, my personal librarian, who is so much more than that
ii
Anyone can whistle, that’s what they say – Easy.
Anyone can whistle, any old day – Easy.
It’s all so simple, relax, let go, let fly
So someone tell me why can’t I?
Stephen Sondheim
Anyone Can Whistle
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of this project would not have been possible without the support
of my family, friends, and colleagues; and I am thrilled to have this opportunity to
acknowledge their contributions.

Thank you to my committee members, for their generous and enthusiastic support
of this research, especially Dr. Eileen Finnegan for her patience and unfaltering
encouragement during the research process, and Dr. Rachel Joselson for introducing me
to the whistle register phonation exercises that provided the impetus for this study. I am
also indebted to the subjects and judges who so generously donated their time and talents
to the pilot and pedagogical studies, and to Dr. Sheila Barron for her assistance with the
statistical analysis portion of this research.
Thank you to my brilliant friends and colleagues – Lynn Maxfield, Bryce Weber,
Jonathan Struve, Becky Fields-Moffitt, Juan Carlos Mendoza, Clara Osowski, Michelle
Crouch and Gino DeLuca – who on many occasions contributed to the improvement of
this project by providing a sounding board for my ideas.
Thank you to the UI Graduate College for the award of the Ballard & Seashore
Dissertation Year Fellowship, which afforded me the luxury of a research year in which
to conduct the pilot and current pedagogical studies. Thank you also to the Arts &
Humanities department at Kirkwood Community College, especially Dr. Jennifer

Bradley, Cort Iverson, and Ray Salucka, for the use of their facilities during the pilot
study and their continuous support of my creative and scholarly pursuits.

And, of course, my successful completion of this project is owed in part to the
unconditional love and extraordinary encouragement I have received from my family.
Thank you to Conrad, Gretchen, Mom, and Dad for their tremendous enthusiasm and
technical expertise during the research process.
iv
ABSTRACT
The standard vocal repertoire for soprano requires use of the uppermost segment
of the female voice, which is typically produced using whistle register phonation. Voice
teachers recognize that sopranos use whistle register phonation during performance to
produce pitches in the highest segment of their range; however, the use of whistle register
phonation as a training tool for female singers of all voice types is less common and the
benefits of using whistle registration exercises to condition the female voice are not
widely known. While several pedagogical manuals recommend vocal exercises that use
whistle register phonation in the range of the second passaggio and in the highest
segment of the female voice, no research has been conducted to investigate the benefits
of singing in whistle register.
The purpose of this study was to measure the efficacy of vocal exercises that
incorporate whistle register phonation as treatment for poor intonation and pressed and/or
breathy vocal quality in female singers with vocal challenges in the second passaggio of
their voice. The influence of whistle register phonation on extending vocal range was
also investigated.
A treatment-no treatment (ABAB) research design was used. Five female
vocalists attended 16 weekly sessions. During the treatment phases, participants received
weekly instruction in vocal exercises using whistle register phonation and practiced these
activities daily. Audio samples of two vocal exercises and a repertoire excerpt were
collected weekly. Measurements taken during the treatment phases were compared to
measurements taken during the no-treatment phases.
Results of comparative Voice Range Profiles and a weekly Range Extension
Measurement Task showed a positive relationship between practice of whistle register
exercises and an increase in the upper pitch range in all subjects. Subjects gained an
average of 2.4 semitones during Treatment Phase 1, when the whistle register tasks were
v
introduced. Subjects lost an average of 1.2 semitones during the No Treatment phase,
when the practice of whistle register tasks was withdrawn. Subjects gained an average of
2.2 semitones during Treatment Phase 2, when the whistle register tasks were
reintroduced. The average overall gain in the upper pitch range was +4.3 semitones for
mezzo-sopranos and +2 semitones for sopranos. In addition, data collected to measure
the pitch range over which whistle register phonation was possible showed an average
range of 14 semitones (D5 – E6); supporting the notion that whistle register phonation is
possible in the range of the second passaggio and could be developed in this range by
female singers of all voice types.
Eight voice teachers rated each audio sample for intonation and vocal quality
during register transition through the second passaggio. Mixed-model ANOVA (analysis
of variance) was conducted to compare the effect of whistle register phonation exercises
on quality of intonation, vocal quality, the presence and severity of breathiness, and the
presence and severity of strain at each phase of the study. Significance was determined at
the p<.05 level.
There was a significant effect of whistle register phonation exercises on severity
of Breathiness [F(3,209) = 6.66, p = 0.0003]. Mean severity ratings for Breathiness for
all subjects were significantly lower during No Treatment than in Treatment Phase 1 and
Treatment Phase 2, suggesting that breathiness was less severe when the subjects were
not practicing whistle register exercises.
Severity of strain generally decreased continually throughout all phases. Mean
severity ratings for Strain were consistently lower for Treatment Phase 1, No Treatment,
and Treatment Phase 2 compared to Baseline. The differences between Treatment Phase
1, No Treatment, and Treatment Phase 2 were statistically significant [F(3,209) = 3.52, p
= 0.0161]. Mean Intonation ratings generally increased through Treatment Phase 1 and
were significantly higher for the No Treatment phase and Treatment Phase 2 compared to
vi
Baseline [F(3,209) = 2.99, p = 0.0322]. The effect of whistle register phonation exercises
on vocal quality was not significant at the p<.05 level.
A Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) was used to calculate the intra-judge
reliability for perceptual evaluation of all vocal tasks. Statistical analysis comparing the
judges’ ratings for identical audio samples shows that in this study the judges were
consistent in their rating of Breathiness (PCC = 0.76) and had difficulty rating Strain
(0.57), Vocal Quality (0.60), and Intonation (0.65). A PCC was used to calculate the
correlations between each pair of judges’ rating for all vocal tasks, and Cronbach’s Alpha
was used as an overall measure of the inter-rater reliability. Statistical analysis
comparing the judges’ ratings for all audio samples shows that in this study the judges
were consistent in their rating of Breathiness (α = 0.80), mediocre in rating Strain (0.62)
and Vocal Quality (0.69), and not consistent in their rating of Intonation (0.53).
The results of the current study suggest that whistle register exercises can be used
to facilitate range extension for all female voice types. That performance of whistle
register phonation exercises correlated to increased breathiness implies that the exercises
tested in this study may not be an effective treatment for singers with breathy voices.
Further research investigating the influence of whistle register exercises on intonation,
overall vocal quality, and severity of strain is needed. Results of the intra- and inter-rater
reliability tests demonstrate a need for research that explores more reliable ways to
quantify perceptual evaluation of vocal quality in singers.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..............................................................xv
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
Need for the Current Study ...............................................................................5
CHAPTER
1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...........................................................................6

Singing Registers of the Female Voice ............................................................6
Definition of Register and Register Terminology for the Female
Singing Voice ............................................................................................6
A Framework for the Study of Register in the Female Voice:
Characteristics of Chest and Falsetto ........................................................7
Current Theories of the Physiology of Chest and Falsetto
Register Productions ..........................................................................7
Singing Registers: Transition from Chest to Falsetto ........................9
Muscle Activity and Vocal Fold Vibration in Chest and
Falsetto Registers .............................................................................11
Glottal Waveform in Chest and Falsetto Registers ..........................13
Vocal Quality of Chest and Falsetto Registers.................................15
Summary ..........................................................................................17
Singing Registers in the Upper Range of the Female Voice ...................18
Middle Register ................................................................................19
Upper Register..................................................................................19
Whistle Register..............................................................................................20
Terminology and Problems .....................................................................21
Vocal Quality of Whistle Register: Perceptual Characteristics ...............24
Early Hypotheses of Vocal Fold Behavior During Whistle Register
Phonation .................................................................................................25
Experimental Evidence: Laryngoscopic, Electrophysiological, and
Spectral Observations During Whistle Register Phonation.....................27
Vocal Fold Vibration in Whistle Register ........................................27
Glottal Waveform in Whistle Register .............................................28
Acoustic Properties of Whistle Register ..........................................33
Observable Pitch Range for Whistle Register Phonation ........................33
Summary..................................................................................................34
The Second Passaggio Transition in the Female Voice .................................38
Pressed Phonation and Other Vocal Challenges Encountered in the
Second Passaggio Transition ..................................................................40
Whistle Register Phonation in the Second Passaggio Pitch Range ........42
The Use of Whistle Register Phonation in Voice Training ............................42
Whistle Register Phonation as a Training Tool .......................................44
Review of Whistle Register Phonation Exercises from the Vocal
Pedagogy Literature.................................................................................45
viii
Oren Brown ......................................................................................46
Berton Coffin....................................................................................46
Robert Caldwell and Joan Wall ........................................................51
Richard Miller ..................................................................................53
Stephen Austin .................................................................................54
Eliciting Whistle Register in Female Singers ..........................................55
Summary..................................................................................................57
Problem Review..............................................................................................57
2 METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................60
Hypothesis ......................................................................................................60
Theoretical Framework ...........................................................................60
Single Subject Experimental Design ................................................60
Subjects ...........................................................................................................61
Study Design ...................................................................................................63
Instrumentation ...............................................................................................64
Description of Vocal Tasks ............................................................................64
Vocalises A and B ...................................................................................64
Range Extension Measurement Task ......................................................65
Whistle Register Tasks 1 and 2: PWRP Exercises ..................................65
Procedure ........................................................................................................67
Baseline Phase .........................................................................................67
Treatment Phase 1 ...................................................................................70
No-Treatment Phase ................................................................................72
Treatment Phase 2 ...................................................................................73
Measurement and Auditors .............................................................................74
3 REPORTING OF RESULTS .........................................................................78
Possible Range for Whistle Register Phonation .............................................78

Range Extension .............................................................................................85
Voice Range Profile ........................................................................................88
VRP Data: Subject One ...........................................................................89
VRP Data: Subject Two ..........................................................................91
VRP Data: Subject Three ........................................................................93
VRP Data: Subject Four ..........................................................................95
VRP Data: Subject Five...........................................................................97
Perceptual Assessment of Audio Samples ......................................................99
Results of Perceptual Analysis: Quality of Intonation ............................99
Results of Perceptual Analysis: Vocal Quality .....................................101
Results of Perceptual Analysis: Severity of Breathiness .......................103
Results of Perceptual Analysis: Severity of Strain ................................106
Challenges of Perceptually Evaluating Vocal Quality ..........................108
Intra-judge Reliability ....................................................................111
Inter-judge Reliability ....................................................................111
Statistical Analysis of Calibration Data .........................................112
4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ......................................................................116
Range for Whistle Register Phonation .........................................................116

Whistle Register Exercises and Range Extension ........................................116
Influence of Whistle Register Exercises on Intonation & Vocal Quality .....116
Pedagogical Implications and Future Research ............................................117
ix
Efficacy of Whistle Register Exercises in Training the Female
Singing Voice ........................................................................................117
Limitations of the Current Study that Lead to Implications for
Further Research ....................................................................................118
Conclusion ....................................................................................................122
APPENDIX
A DESCRIPTION OF VOCAL TASKS AND VOCALISES ...........................123
B INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT ......................................................125
C SUBJECT INTAKE FORM AND VOCAL HEALTH

QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................................................131
D WEEKLY VOCAL TASKS: TREATMENT PHASES ...............................134
E WEEKLY VOCAL TASKS: NO-TREATMENT PHASE ..........................136
F AUDITORY ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES ..............................................137
G SAMPLE FORM: PERCEPTUAL EVALUATION ....................................138
REFERENCE LIST .........................................................................................................139
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Characteristics of Whistle Register Phonation Compared to Chest

and Head/Falsetto Registers .......................................................................35
Table 1.2 Whistle Register Terminology ...................................................................36
Table 1.3 Suggested Pitch Range for the Use of Whistle Register Phonation
Described in Coffin’s Chromatic Vowel Chart .........................................50
Table 1.4 Instructions for Whistle Register Phonation in Voice Training Found
in the Pedagogical Literature .....................................................................56
Table 2.1 Subject Intake Information ........................................................................61
Table 2.2 Experimental Phases and Timeline ............................................................63

Table 2.3 Target Pitch Range of Whistle Register Tasks ..........................................67
Table 2.4 Task Performance Pitch Ranges for Vocalises A and B ............................69
Table 2.5 Pitch Ranges for Whistle Register Tasks ...................................................71
Table 3.1 The Percentage of Total Pitch Range Over Which Whistle Register
Phonation Was Produced by Subjects 1-5 .................................................78
Table 3.2 Average Lowest and Highest Pitches for Whistle Register Phonation ......79
Table 3.3 Total Number of Semitones Added to the Upper Pitch Range During
Study ..........................................................................................................85
Table 3.4 Subject 1 - Comparison of Dynamic Range (Measured in dB SPL)

for Pitches Produced in the 2nd Passaggio and Higher During the
Four Phases of the Study............................................................................90



Table 3.9 Mean Intonation Ratings During the Four Phases of the Study...............100
xi
Table 3.10 Mixed-model ANOVA for Quality of Intonation ....................................101
Table 3.11 Mean Vocal Quality Ratings During the Four Phases of the Study ........102
Table 3.12 Mixed-model ANOVA for Vocal Quality ...............................................103

Table 3.13 Mean Severity of Breathiness Ratings During the Four Phases of the
Study ........................................................................................................104
Table 3.14 Mixed-model ANOVA for Severity of Breathiness ................................105
Table 3.15 Severity of Strain Ratings During the Four Phases of the Study .............106
Table 3.16 Mixed-model ANOVA for Severity of Strain .........................................107

Table 3.17 Intra-judge Reliability Scores for Perceptual Evaluation of
Intonation, Vocal Quality, Breathiness, and Strain..................................111
Table 3.18 Inter-judge Reliability Scores for Perceptual Evaluation of

Intonation, Vocal Quality, Breathiness, and Strain..................................111
Table 3.19 Mean and Standard Deviation Values for Judges 2-8 Showing
Agreement with Calibration Ratings of Vocal Quality............................113
Agreement with Calibration Ratings of Breathiness ...............................114
Agreement with Calibration Ratings of Strain.........................................115
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Propagation of Vocal Sound ......................................................................11
Figure 1.2 Yodels at the Fourth with Whistle Register ...............................................49
Figure 1.3 Floating High Notes ...................................................................................50
Figure 2.1 Vocalise A ..................................................................................................64

Figure 2.2 Vocalise B ..................................................................................................64
Figure 2.3 Whistle Register Task 1 .............................................................................66
Figure 2.4 Whistle Register Task 2 .............................................................................66

Figure 2.5 Power Point Slide, Vocalise A, Subject 1 ..................................................76
Figure 3.1 Whistle Register Range & Highest Possible Pitch Produced –
Subject 1.....................................................................................................80
Subject 2.....................................................................................................81
Subject 3.....................................................................................................82
Subject 4.....................................................................................................83
Subject 5.....................................................................................................84
Figure 3.6 Average Number of Semitones Gained (Lost) in Upper Range

During Each Phase .....................................................................................86
Figure 3.7 Semitones Gained (Lost) in Upper Range During Each Phase [Final
Performance Measurement] .......................................................................87
Figure 3.8 Subject 1 Voice Range Profile – Comparison of Baseline, T1, NT
and T2 ........................................................................................................89

and T2 ........................................................................................................91

and T2 ........................................................................................................93

and T2 ........................................................................................................95
xiii
and T2 ........................................................................................................97
Figure 3.13 Mean Rating for Intonation for Subjects 1-5 During the Four Phases
of the Study ..............................................................................................100
Figure 3.14 Mean Rating for Vocal Quality for Subjects 1-5 During the Four
Phases of the Study ..................................................................................102
Figure 3.15 Mean Rating for Severity of Breathiness for Subjects 1-5 During the
Four Phases of the Study..........................................................................104
Figure 3.16 Mean Rating for Severity of Strain for Subjects 1-5 During the Four
Phases of the Study ..................................................................................106
Figure 3.17 Judges’ Perceptual Ratings of Intonation and Vocal Quality for
Subjects 1-5 During Each Week of the Study .........................................109
Figure 3.18 Judges’ Perceptual Ratings of Severity of Breathiness and Severity

of Strain for Subjects 1-5 During Each Week of the Study .....................110
xiv
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ξ0 Pre-phonatory glottal half-width
α Alpha
A Amplitude
F0 Fundamental frequency
F1 First formant frequency
Qa Abduction Quotient
ANOVA Analysis of Variance

ASHA American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
CAPE-V Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice
CoMeT Collegium Medicorum Theatri
CPS Cycles per Second
CQ Closed Quotient
CT Cricothyroid
dB Decibels
DEGG Derivative of Electroglottography
EGG Electroglottography
EMG Electromyography
GRBAS Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, Strain

Hz Hertz
IA Interarytenoids
LCA Lateral Cricoarytenoid
M0 Laryngeal configuration corresponding to pulse register
M1 Laryngeal configuration corresponding to chest register
M2 Laryngeal configuration corresponding to falsetto register
M3 Laryngeal configuration corresponding to whistle register
xv
MFR Maximum Flow Rate
MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging
NT No Treatment Phase
OQ Open Quotient
PCC Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient
PI Principal Investigator
PWRP Purposeful Whistle Register Phonation

Qcs Contact Speed Quotient
S1 Subject 1
S2 Subject 2
S3 Subject 3
S4 Subject 4
S5 Subject 5
SPL Sound Pressure Level
TA Thyroarytenoid
T1 Treatment Phase 1
T2 Treatment Phase2
VKG Videokymography
VRP Voice Range Profile
WR Whistle Register
xvi
1
INTRODUCTION
A large part of the standard vocal repertoire for soprano requires the use of the
uppermost segment of the female voice. Pitches in this extended vocal range are
typically produced using whistle register phonation (also called “flute register” or
“flageolet”). Voice teachers recognize that sopranos use whistle register phonation
during performance to produce pitches in the highest segment of their range; however,
the use of whistle register phonation as a training tool for female singers of all voice
types is less common and the benefits of using whistle registration exercises to condition
the female voice are not widely known.
This study examines the use of whistle register phonation as a training tool for all
female singers and is specifically directed at examining the efficacy of whistle register
phonation exercises as treatment for vocal challenges encountered in the range of the
second passaggio. The exercises tested during this study incorporate both head and
whistle register phonation and require the use of vowel modification to create a deliberate
register change (between head register and whistle register) for the purpose of vocal
training. The vocal exercises tested in this study are named purposeful whistle register
phonation (PWRP) exercises for the deliberate nature of the register change.
Because the most prevalent use of whistle register phonation is for performance
purposes, such as singing operatic cadenzas and arias that require extended range, the
term “whistle register” is often associated with the coloratura soprano voice classification
and the vocal literature that requires the use of the highest tones of the female voice.
However, whistle register can be used for training purposes by female singers of all voice
types (Austin, 2008; Brown, 1996; Caldwell & Wall, 2001; Coffin, 1980; R. Miller,
2000). This requires the understanding that for use in voice training the definition of
whistle register phonation must depend upon the timbre (what it sounds like) and
2
sensation (what it feels like) of the sounds produced, rather than upon the pitch range in
which whistle register usually occurs.
Vocal pedagogues typically use pitch, or fundamental frequency (F0) to classify
whistle register (McCoy, 2004; McKinney, 1995; R. Miller, 2000; Ware, 1998). The
misconception that only a small number of singers are able to produce tones in whistle
register stems from defining whistle register by its pitch range and leads to the practice of
limiting the pitch range in which whistle register phonation is used to the highest segment
of the female voice (the high soprano vocal literature). This is problematic because while
whistle register and pitch are related, register is not defined by range.
A vocal register can be defined 1) by the characteristics of its vocal quality
(timbre) and 2) by the mechanical configuration of the larynx during phonation (Garcia,
1841/1982; Titze, 2000). The characteristics of vocal quality and laryngeal configuration
in chest and falsetto registers are well documented. Distinctions between chest register
and falsetto register can be quantified by measuring the activity of the intrinsic laryngeal
muscles during phonation, the opening and closing phases of the vocal folds, and the
spectral characteristics of tones produced in these registers (Colton, 1972; Henrich,
d’Alessandro, Doval, & Castellengo, 2005; Henrich, Bernard, & Castellengo, 2003;
Hirano, Ohala, & Vennard, 1969; Hirano, Vennard, & Ohala, 1970; Hirano, Hibi, &
Sanada, 1989; Keidar, Hurtig, & Titze, 1987; Murry, Xu, & Woodson, 1998; Titze, 1988;
Van den Berg, 1963; Vilkman, Alku, & Laukkanen, 1995). During chest register
phonation, the vocal folds are short and thick, vibrating with complete closure (Hirano et
al., 1969; Hirano et al., 1970; Van den Berg, 1963; Vilkman et al., 1995) that produces
greater energy in the high frequency partials and a shallow spectral slope (Colton, 1972;
Hirano et al., 1989; Keidar et al., 1987; Titze, 1988) which is perceived as the rich vocal
quality associated with chest register. The light vocal quality associated with falsetto
register is perceived as a result of thin, stretched vocal folds that vibrate with a greater
degree of separation (Hirano et al., 1969; Hirano et al., 1970; Murry et al., 1998; Van den
3
Berg, 1963; Vilkman et al., 1995) that produces less energy in the high frequency partials
and a steeper spectral slope (Colton, 1972; Hirano et al., 1989; Keidar et al., 1987; Titze,
1988).
In the past thirty years significant scientific research has been devoted to the
acoustic, physiological and perceptual study of the whistle register. Recent research
observing the vibratory characteristics of the vocal folds (Garnier et al., 2012; Svec,
Sundberg, & Hertegard, 2008), glottal waveform characteristics (Garnier et al., 2012;
Henrich et al., 2005; Henrich et al., 2003; D. Miller & Schutte, 1993), and airflow rates
(Walker, 1986 & 1988) during whistle register phonation has begun to shed light on the
physiological characteristics of this register. Voice scientists have also investigated the
acoustic properties of whistle register, studying the harmonics (Walker, 1986 & 1988),
spectral envelope (Walker, 1986 & 1988), and vocal tract formants (Garnier et al., 2012;
D. Miller & Schutte, 1993; Svec et al., 2008; Titze, 2008). This research suggests that
during whistle register phonation the vocal folds are fully elongated and vibrate with
reduced contact area and less adduction in comparison to head [falsetto] register
phonation (Garnier et al., 2012; D. Miller & Schutte, 1993; Svec et al., 2008; Walker,
1986 & 1988). The flute-like vocal quality associated with whistle register phonation is
perceived as a result of extremely stretched vocal folds vibrating with a high degree of
abduction (Garnier et al., 2012; Henrich et al., 2003; D. Miller & Schutte, 1993; Svec et
al., 2008) which produce fewer harmonics (Walker, 1986 & 1988).
Whistle register phonation can be perceptually identified as different from
phonation in other voice registers by its vocal timbre (Walker, 1986 & 1988). The timbre
of whistle register phonation sounds lighter and less full than phonation in head [falsetto]
register. Pitches produced in whistle register are often compared to the sound of a flute
or bell (Garnier et al., 2012; R. Miller, 1986; Titze, 2000). The perceived flute-like
timbre is a result of the laryngeal configuration during whistle register phonation. Recent
investigation of the high soprano range (Garnier et al., 2012) found that sopranos use a
4
distinct laryngeal configuration for the production of whistle register (identified as “fluty
resonant” vocal quality) that is different from that used to produce head [falsetto] register
(identified as “full head” vocal quality). In addition, the sopranos were able to use the
laryngeal configuration for whistle register phonation starting as low as C5-D5, a range
that is one octave lower than what is usually reported for whistle register and corresponds
with the lowest pitches of the second passaggio transition in the female voice. This
research has made it possible to understand some of the physical and acoustic
characteristics of whistle register phonation, but limited evidence exists to determine the
efficacy of the whistle registration exercises that are used in voice studios.
It has been suggested that vocal exercises that require purposeful production of
whistle register in the range of the second passaggio and higher can be beneficial in the
training of female vocalists (Austin, 2008; Coffin, 1980). Pedagogues who advocate for
the use of whistle register as a training tool propose that whistle register can be used to
extend the upper limit of a singer’s range (Austin, 2008; Brown, 1996; Caldwell & Wall,
2001; Coffin, 1980; R. Miller, 2000). In addition to gaining access to the highest pitches
in a singer’s range, PWRP exercises are also used to condition and strengthen the upper
extension of the female voice that is used abundantly in the standard art song and operatic
repertoire for soprano (R. Miller, 2000). Other advantages of vocalizing in whistle
register in the range of the second passaggio include better control of tone production and
vocal quality in the middle and upper ranges of the female voice that are typically
produced in head register, as well as maintaining consistent timbre and accurate
intonation when singing in the range of the second passaggio (Austin, 2008; Caldwell &
Wall, 2001; Coffin, 1980; R. Miller, 2000).
While the aforementioned pedagogical manuals recommend vocal exercises that
use whistle register phonation in the range of the second passaggio and in the highest
segment of the female voice, no research has been conducted to investigate the benefits
of singing in whistle register. The following questions remain to be objectively

5
answered: Does the incorporation of whistle register phonation into the regular practice
routine of a female singer lead to an increase in vocal range? Does the incorporation of
purposeful whistle register phonation (PWRP) exercises into the regular practice routine
of a female singer lead to improved intonation and vocal quality in the range of the
second passaggio?
Need for the Current Study

The lack of research devoted to the use of whistle register phonation as a training
tool for female singers makes apparent the necessity of further investigation of the
classification and function of whistle register in relationship to its use in conditioning the
female singing voice. The purpose of this study is to test the efficacy of the use of PWRP
exercises in the training of the female voice, with emphasis on their effects on improving
intonation and vocal quality in a population of singers presenting with vocal challenges
such as “pressed” or “breathy” phonation in the second passaggio. The influence of
PWRP exercises on extending the vocal range of female singers will also be investigated.
6
CHAPTER 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Singing Registers of the Female Voice

In order to provide a framework for the description of the singing registers in the
upper range of the female voice, this literature review will begin with a definition of
vocal register and a report on what is currently known about the two main registers
(labeled “chest” and “falsetto” within the scientific literature). A brief discussion of the
terminology issues presented within the scientific and pedagogical literature will also be
included. Timbre characteristics of the middle and upper registers of the female singing
voice will be identified. Next, a historical overview and report on what is currently
known about whistle register will be given. This will be followed by a definition of the
register transition that occurs at the second passaggio of the female voice and discussion
of the vocal challenges encountered by singers therein. Finally, pedagogical approaches
for the use of whistle register phonation exercises in voice training will be reviewed.
Definition of Register and Register Terminology for the

Female Singing Voice
The term register appears in descriptions of voice quality in both voice and
singing literature. In his 1841 treatise on vocal pedagogy, Garcia defines vocal registers
as “a series of consecutive and homogenous tones going from low to high, produced by
the development of some mechanical principle, and whose nature differs essentially from
another series of tones equally consecutive and homogenous produced by another
mechanical principle” (Garcia, 1841/1982, p. xli). Titze (2000) states that “the term
register has been used to describe perceptually distinct regions of voice quality that can
be maintained over some ranges of pitch and loudness” (p. 282). Thus, a register can be
identified in two ways: (1) by the characteristics of its vocal quality (timbre) and (2) by
the mechanical configuration of the larynx.
7
Efforts have been made to define a common vocabulary to describe vocal
registers within the scientific and singing community. Terms for register are based on the
sensations of resonance a singer feels when producing pitches (chest register, head
register), the vocal quality (heavy mechanism, light mechanism, flute register), vocal
function (thyroarytenoid-dominant production, cricothyroid-dominant production),
empirical scientific evidence (modal register, falsetto register), and the range of singing
(lower register, upper register). In this paper, as the framework for understanding register
control is established, the terms “chest” and “falsetto” will be used to refer to the two
main vocal registers. The terms chest and falsetto occur often in the scientific literature
and have familiarity within the vocal pedagogy community. The term falsetto register
corresponds to female head register, a label commonly used in voice training that
comprises the “middle” and “upper” registers of the female singing voice.
A Framework for the Study of Register in the Female

Voice: Characteristics of Chest and Falsetto1
Current Theories of the Physiology of Chest and Falsetto

Register Productions
There are several theories identifying critical elements important for the control of
vocal register. Van den Berg (1963) reported that the shift in longitudinal tension from
the thyroarytenoid (TA) muscles to the vocal ligaments play an important role in register
control during chest and falsetto phonation. The vocal ligament is located within the
vocal fold just medial to the TA muscle. It is comprised of the intermediate and deep
layers of the lamina propria and is composed of collagen and elastin fibers. Through
1In vocal pedagogy, the term “falsetto” has an immediate association with highest register of the
male singing voice, named for its feminine vocal quality. In voice science, the term “falsetto”
refers to the glottal source activity and is applied to both male and female voices when referring
to the register that occurs after the transition from chest register. I will use the term “falsetto
register” to describe the functional behavior of the larynx, with appropriation of the term “head
register” to describe the use of this falsetto source function by the female vocalists.
8
observation of phonation simulation using excised human larynges, Van den Berg found
that the vocal ligaments were short, lax and adducted during chest register phonation and
that during falsetto register phonation the vocal ligaments were elongated, tense, and
abducted. In addition, during falsetto register phonation the vocal folds were thin and the
longitudinal tension was supported by the vocal ligaments. As pitch is increased in chest
register the length of the vocal ligament increases and the vocal processes abduct,
resulting in an abrupt shift to falsetto unless there is an increase in the medial

compression of the vocal folds.
Titze (1988, 2000) states that the timbre transition between chest register and
falsetto register can be perceptually determined by vocal quality and can also be observed
in the spectral slope and abduction quotient (Titze, 1988 & 2000). A spectrum is a graph
of intensity as a function of frequency. Spectral slope measures the rate of decrease in
the amplitude of successive harmonics of the voice source as frequency increases
(measured in dB/octave). The difference in vocal timbre between chest register and
falsetto register is associated with an acoustic change due to a loss of high frequency
sound energy at the glottal source, which can be observed in the spectral slope as a
decrease in the amplitude of partials. Chest register has a shallow spectral slope and
falsetto register has a steep spectral slope.

Titze (1988, 2000) has stated that this abrupt change in spectral slope can result
from a small change in the separation between the vocal folds. The degree of separation
can be quantified as the abduction quotient (Qa).
Qa = ξ0/A
In this equation, ξ0 is the pre-phonatory glottal half-width (measured from the
mid-point of the glottis to the center of either vocal fold) and A is the amplitude of
vibration of the vocal fold. Tones with smaller Qa values exhibit a greater number of
high frequency partials with significant energy. The result is a shallower spectral slope,
and phonation is perceived as chest register. Conversely, tones with higher Qa values are
9
characterized by a loss in the number of high frequency partials. This results in a steeper
spectral slope, and the sound is perceived as falsetto register.
Vilkman, Alku, & Laukkanen (1995) found that chest register requires not only
vocal fold contact but also sufficient collision along the vertical and longitudinal planes
of the vocal folds. Vilkman et al. call this strong collision “critical mass” and
hypothesized that when critical mass was achieved chest register would occur. Critical
mass depends on the vertical thickness of the glottis; chest register phonation can be
avoided in production of low pitches if the glottis is opened. Vilkman et al. state that as
pitch is increased in chest register, the vertical thickness of the glottis decreases and the
stiffness of the vocal fold mucosa increases as a result of the vocal fold lengthening. The
break from chest register to falsetto occurs when the mucosal stiffness becomes so great
that the TA muscle can no longer maintain the vertical thickness of the glottis: the strong
collision along both vertical and horizontal planes of the vocal folds (critical mass)
required for chest register phonation is not possible. The vocal folds can be lengthened
or stiffened to reduce the vertical thickness of the glottis and produce falsetto register
during the production of higher pitches. Vilkman et al. speculate that trained singers use
shorter vocal fold lengths to maintain a rectangular glottis and avoid an increase in
stiffness to smooth or delay the shift to falsetto register.
Singing Registers: Transition from Chest to Falsetto

There are two pitch areas in the female voice where it is necessary for changes to
occur in the source (glottis) and resonant (vocal tract) modes in order to maintain
perceptual consistency throughout a singer’s range (Titze, 2000). Vocal pedagogues
have named these areas passaggi, after the Italian musical term which describes passages
from one register to another. These involuntary register shifts, or passaggi, occur
consistently at specific fundamental frequency (F0) ranges in the female voice. The
transition from chest register to falsetto register is called the first passaggio in the female
10
singing voice (referred to as the second passaggio for male vocalists). The second
passaggio of the female voice occurs in the upper pitch range, and will be discussed later
in this paper.
The first passaggio of the female voice marks the difficult and often problematic
transition from chest register to head [falsetto] register. This register shift occurs
between the pitches D4 (294 Hz) and F4 (349 Hz) in both male and female singers
(Keidar et al., 1987; Titze, 1988). Scientists and pedagogues agree that for female
singers the upper pitch limit of chest register (if belting technique is not used) occurs at
the first register transition (primo passaggio), between the pitches D4-F4 (294 Hz- 349
Hz) (Appelman, 1986; Keidar et al., 1987; D. Miller, 2000; R. Miller, 2000, Titze, 1988;
Titze, 2000). Traditional pedagogical approaches place great importance upon creating
smooth transitions between all vocal registers. Skilled singers should be able to transition
through the range of both passaggi without noticeable breaks. In order to eliminate
perceptible breaks in the voice, adjustments in laryngeal configuration and resonant space
must be made.
The intrinsic laryngeal muscles are thought to play an important role in the first
passaggio register transition. Titze (2000) suggests that abrupt register transitions could
be equalized with the proper adjustments in laryngeal muscle activity and lung pressure.
However, limitations do occur at higher F0. Titze states that the thyroarytenoid (TA)
muscle (responsible for shortening the vocal folds) can only sustain tension as pitch rises
until a certain point, at which the cricothyroid (CT) muscle (responsible for lengthening
the vocal folds) takes over. The “breaking” point of TA muscle contraction happens at
the first passaggio. Titze speculates that trained singers eliminate the presence of register
“breaks” by coordinating a gradual release of the TA muscle while gradually increasing
CT activity as pitch rises. In his textbook, Principles of Voice Production (2000, p. 303),
Titze writes: “At higher fundamental frequencies register breaks can be eliminated by
training the thryo-arytenoid (TA) muscle to deactivate gradually, in coordination with

11
increased activity of the crico-thyroid (CT) muscle. This differential control of two
intrinsic muscle groups is one of the most difficult tasks in all of voice training.”
The aforementioned theories (Titze, 1988 & 2000; Van den Berg, 1963; Vilkman
et al., 1995) suggest that as a singer transitions from chest to falsetto register adjustments
must be made in the activity of the intrinsic laryngeal muscles and the opening and
closing patterns of the vocal folds in order to avoid an abrupt break. Distinctions
between chest register and falsetto register can be quantified by measuring the activity of
the intrinsic laryngeal muscles during phonation, the opening and closing phases of the
vocal folds, and the spectral characteristics of tones produced in these registers (Henrich
et al., 2005; Henrich et al., 2003; Hirano et al., 1989; Hirano et al., 1969; Hirano et al.,
1970; Keidar et al., 1987; Murry et al., 1998; Titze, 1988; Van den Berg, 1963; Vilkman
et al., 1995). Figure 1.1 shows the origin of the physiological and acoustic factors that
influence perception of register and how each factor is measured; this figure illustrates
how laryngeal physiology affects the acoustic properties of sound and in turn influences
how vocal registers are perceived.
GLOTTIS MOUTH EAR

Muscle Activity + Glottal Waveform Acoustic Signal Perceived Sound
EMG EGG SPECTRAL SLOPE WHAT WE HEAR
Figure 1.1 Propagation of Vocal Sound
Muscle Activity and Vocal Fold Vibration in Chest and

Falsetto Registers
For same pitch phonation, the activity of intrinsic laryngeal muscles is greater
during chest register phonation than muscle activity during falsetto register phonation
(Hirano et al., 1969). Hirano, Ohala and Vennard (1969) used electromyography (EMG)
to compare the activity of the thyroarytenoid (TA), lateral cricoarytenoid (LCA) and
12
cricothyroid (CT) muscles during performance of a one-octave scale produced in chest
register and falsetto register by six subjects, and found that activity of all three muscles
was greater in chest register than in falsetto register.
The TA muscle is essential to the regulation of chest and falsetto registers (Hirano
et al., 1970). Hirano, Vennard and Ohala (1970) investigated the effects of register,
pitch, and intensity on intrinsic laryngeal muscle activity during vocal production. Four
professional singers performed a variety of singing tasks, including scales, arpeggios and
swelltones – over 850 utterances were collected. Hirano et al. observed the activity of the
vocalis (TA), cricothyroid (CT), lateral cricothyroid (LCA) and interarytenoid (IA)
muscles via EMG signals recorded from bi-polar hooked wire electrodes inserted through
the skin of the subjects’ neck into each muscle investigated. It was found that activity of
the TA muscle showed marked decrease during phonation in falsetto register in
comparison to the production of the same pitches in chest register. These results suggest
that the TA muscle may play an important role in register regulation. With regard to
pitch, it was found that in chest register the activity of the TA, CT and LCA were always
positively related to pitch, i.e. activity in these muscles increased when pitch was
increased during chest register phonation. In falsetto register, the activity of these
muscles sometimes did not vary during changes in pitch. CT activity was the least
dependent upon pitch, especially in the upper range in falsetto register. Hirano et al.
speculated that airflow may have a larger impact than muscle activity on the production
of higher pitches in falsetto register.
Chest register is produced with a greater degree of glottal closure than falsetto
register (Murry et al., 1998). Murry, Xu and Woodson (1998) used video endoscopic
recording to observe glottal closure patterns for eight subjects (four males and four
females) during same-pitch phonation of sustained /i/ vowel with constant intensity in
chest and falsetto registers. Phonations in chest register showed a greater degree of
glottal closure compared to falsetto register, and all subjects produced falsetto register
13
with an open glottis. The shape of glottal closure was the same for both modes of
phonation. The results suggest that some degree of incomplete glottal closure during
high-frequency phonation could be considered normal for both males and females. None
of the subjects were professional singers, and the researchers speculate that voice training
may produce a more complete glottal closure during falsetto register phonation.
Glottal Waveform in Chest and Falsetto Registers

Changes in vocal fold contact area can be measured using electroglottography
(EGG), a non-invasive procedure in which two electrodes placed on a singer’s neck

generate a current that varies with the changes in conductance. As the glottis closes and
the vocal fold contact area increases, the amplitude of the EGG signal increases. The
balance between the opening and closing of the vocal folds can be quantified by the
closed (CQ) and open (OQ) quotients. The CQ measures the percentage of each cycle of
vibration in which the vocal folds are adducted, the OQ represents the percentage of each
cycle of vibration in which the vocal folds are abducted.
Glottal waveforms for chest register phonation are characterized by a longer
closing phase and smaller OQ values, whereas glottal waveforms for phonation in falsetto
register are more symmetrical in shape and have greater OQ values (Henrich et al., 2005;
Henrich et al., 2003; Vilkman et al., 1995). Henrich, Roubeau and Castellengo (2003)
analyzed the EGG signal and its derivative (DEGG2) for previously recorded samples of
ascending and descending glissandos performed by 37 trained and untrained singers, both
2Peaks in the derivative of the EGG signal indicate a sudden variation in vocal fold contact and
can be related to the closing and opening instances of the glottis. The open quotient (OQ) is
derived from the ratio of open time (duration between a glottal opening instance and the next
consecutive closing instance) and the fundamental period (duration between two glottal closing
instances). The OQ value indicates the percentage of each cycle of vibration that the vocal folds
are abducted and is a negative function of the closed quotient (CQ), which measures the
percentage of each cycle of vibration in which the vocal folds are adducted (OQ = 1 – CQ).
Values of OQ are dimensionless and range from 0 (no opening) to 1 (no or incomplete closure).
(Henrich, 2005)
14
male and female. The researchers found that the transitions between laryngeal
mechanisms [vocal registers] were always accompanied by an abrupt change in the
amplitude of the EGG signal, even in trained singers where an abrupt difference in timbre
could not be detected or a noticeable frequency jump did not occur.
The authors observed four different laryngeal mechanisms:
1) M0 (corresponds to pulse register), characterized by a long closed phase.
2) M1 (corresponds to chest register), characterized by asymmetrical EGG shape.

The derivative of the EGG (DEGG) showed strong glottal closing peak and weak
glottal opening peak, which the authors relate to the rapid closing and gradual
opening movements of the vocal folds during chest phonation.
3) M2 (corresponds to male falsetto and female head register) showed a more

symmetrical EGG shape than M1. DEGG signal revealed similar amplitude at
both closing and opening peaks.
4) M3 (corresponds to whistle register) was used to produce the highest pitches and
showed a large reduction in vibratory amplitude compared to M2. The authors
suggest that it is possible that there is no contact between the vocal folds during
phonation in M3, speculating that “either there is no EGG signal or the EGG
glottal period is very symmetrical in shape” (p. 3).

These results show that EGG may be used as an indicator of laryngeal mechanism
and support the notion that there is modification in the vibratory process of the vocal
folds at register transition points. The change in the vibratory process was shown as a
sudden variation in the open quotient (the percentage of time the vocal folds are abducted
during one cycle of vibration, characterized by a reduction in the amplitude of the EGG
signal) and was found to be indicative of a change in the vocal fold contact area during
phonation in different registers.
Phonation in chest register is characterized by smaller open quotient (OQ) values
than falsetto register phonation (Henrich et al., 2005; Vilkman et al., 1995). Vilkman et
15
al. (1995) observed the glottal waveform in five subjects (two female, three male) during
the production of sustained phonation beginning in falsetto register followed by an abrupt
transition to chest register and found that OQ values dropped consistently after the
register shift. In addition, the difference between falsetto and chest register phonation
could be seen in the skewing pattern of the waveform. The waveform for chest register
phonation skewed to the right, reflecting the rapid closing movement of the vocal folds,
while falsetto register phonation showed a more symmetrical pattern.

Mean OQ values for phonation in chest register range from 0.4-0.65, while mean
OQ values for falsetto phonation range from 0.65-0.8 (Henrich et al., 2005). Henrich,
d’Alessandro, Doval and Castellengo (2005) examined the correlation of open quotient
values with phonation during chest and falsetto. Eighteen trained singers were recorded
performing four vocal tasks. From these recordings, the researchers analyzed the peaks
in the derivative of the EGG signal (DEGG). Analysis of peaks in the derivative of the
EGG signal showed mean OQ values were lower during phonation in chest register
(between 0.4 and 0.65) than in falsetto register (between 0.65 and 0.8) for all four tasks.
Henrich et al. also found large differences in OQ (ranging from 0.1-0.3) near the register
transition points during a glissando task in all singers, male and female, regardless of
whether the glissando task was performed smoothly.
Vocal Quality of Chest and Falsetto Registers

Phonation in chest register can be perceptually identified as different from
phonation in falsetto register (Keidar et al., 1987). Keidar, Hurtig and Titze (1987)
investigated the perceptual qualities of chest and falsetto registers. Two subjects (one
male and one female) produced phonations of target pitches between G#3 and Bb4 (108-
466 Hz). The target pitches were obtained from recordings of four vocal tasks performed
by each subject in a controlled environment that allowed the vowel, SPL and duration of
each target pitch to be held constant. In order to isolate register as a variable, the subjects
16
were not informed of the study’s purpose and were encouraged to let their voice “do as it
pleased” and not to worry about the beauty of the tones they were producing. Fifteen
tone samples of the target pitches (all one second in duration with equal SPL) were
derived from the recordings of the vocal tasks. The tone samples were played in various
combinations for ten trained listeners, all with some experience in vocal
performance/pedagogy and the self-described ability to discriminate between chest and
falsetto phonations. The judges were given four tasks for perceptual evaluation. In task
1, the judges listened to ascending and descending patterns of the target pitch and were
asked to identify the point of register shift for each pattern. Task 2 required the judges to
listen to a single tone and choose “yes” (the tone sounds like chest register) or “no” (the
tone does not sound like chest register). Task 3 was a paired comparison exercise, in
which the listeners judged two tones as being of the same register or different registers.
In task 4, all possible tone pairings were presented using multi-dimensional scaling and
judges were asked to make a dissimilarity judgment between tone pairs on a ten-point
scale. The judges performed consistently on all perceptual tasks and there was low
variability within and between judges. Results from the perceptual analysis showed that
for the female subject tones below F4 (349 Hz) were consistently judged as chest register
and tones above G4 (392 Hz) were consistently judged as not chest register phonation.
For the male subject, judges consistently identified tones below D4 (294 Hz) as chest
register and tones above F4 (349 Hz) as not chest register phonation. Statistical analysis
of all four perceptual tasks demonstrated that the chest tones and falsetto tones were
consistently perceived as separate entities, regardless of the task used for evaluation.
These results show that the perception of transition between chest register and falsetto
register is primarily dependent upon vocal quality (timbre), rather than frequency.
The perception of vocal register is related to spectral slope (Colton, 1972; Hirano
et al., 1989; Keidar et al., 1987). Spectral slope is a result of changes in separation
between the vocal folds (Qa). Colton (1972) compared three pitches produced by 10 male
17
subjects (five singers and five non-singers) at approximately the same intensity level in
both chest and falsetto registers. Results of spectral analysis showed that on average the
phonations produced in chest register exhibited a greater number of partials with
significant energy than did the phonations produced in falsetto. For falsetto register, the
non-singing group showed an average of 11 partials and the average number of partials
for singers was 10-13. For chest register, non-singers showed an average of 14-20
partials and the average number of partials for singers was 16-20. Hirano, Hibi and
Sanada (1989) compared the acoustic properties of same pitch phonations produced by
three tenors in speech mode, chest register, and falsetto register. Results showed that the
spectral slope varied significantly based on the phonation mode: chest register production
was characterized by a weak fundamental frequency, but high energy in all other
harmonics; falsetto register phonation was characterized by a strong fundamental
frequency and weak energy in the high harmonics. Falsetto register phonations showed
the greatest spectral decay.
Summary
What can be determined from an investigation of the literature regarding chest
register and falsetto phonation is: 1) chest register phonation is characterized by greater
vocal fold adduction, small OQ values and a shallow spectral slope with greater energy in
high partials, and 2) falsetto phonation is characterized by less vocal fold adduction and
greater OQ values than chest and a steep spectral slope with less energy in high partials.
In other words, as a singer transitions from chest register to falsetto muscular adjustments
must be made to account for the decrease in TA activity that occurs as the vocal folds
elongate. Adjustments in laryngeal muscle activity will affect the vibratory pattern of the
vocal folds and cause a change in the amplitude of adduction (the closing force of the
vocal folds). During chest register phonation, the closing phase of vibration is faster than
the opening phase (reflected in a “skewed” waveform) and the amplitude of vocal fold
18
adduction is large. Tones produced in falsetto have a smaller amplitude of vocal fold
adduction and more symmetrical opening and closing phases; the resulting change in
vocal fold contact area is characterized by a loss of energy in the high frequency partials
that causes in a change in perceived timbre.
Singing Registers in the Upper Range of the Female

Voice
The female singing voice is most commonly divided into four registers (D. Miller,
2000; Titze, 2000). In his doctoral dissertation, Registers in Singing: Empirical and
Systematic Studies in the Theory of the Singing Voice, D. Miller (2000) gives the
following pitch ranges in his classification of the female voice:
1. Chest, the register used for most speech, from the lowest
pitches up to the primary register transition at about 300 Hz
(D4), with a possible extension of about one octave (belting) to
D5;
2. Middle, regarded here as the ‘default’ register of singing
(insofar as this is not done in the chest register), comprising
approximately the octave D4-D5 plus a transition to the next
register, which is completed by F5 (700 Hz), at the top of the
staff;
3. Upper, the segment F5-B5-flat (with extension to C6 [1046
Hz]), characterized by greatly reduced vowel definition and
potentially high SPL;
4. Flageolet [whistle], the highest useful segment of the singing
voice, a less effortful appendix to the upper register (pp. 47-48)
The following is a brief discussion of the middle and upper registers of the female
voice that will include the timbre qualities, terminology and typical pitch range
associated with these registers. For the sake of continuity and clarity in naming the
registers, the terms “middle” register and “upper” register delineated by D. Miller (2000)
will be used, with the addition of “head” register. Head register, a term used frequently
in voice teaching, corresponds to the term “falsetto” register in the scientific literature
and encompasses both the middle and upper registers of the female singing voice.
19
Middle Register
“Middle” register phonation occurs in the pitch range where chest register and
falsetto register overlap, and is used by classically trained singers to produce the pitches
that lie between the first passaggio and the second passaggio pivot points in the female
voice, usually D4-F5 (294 Hz-700 Hz) (Caldwell & Wall, 2001; Henrich, 2006; D.
Miller, 2000). Middle register is used most frequently in classical and operatic singing
styles (D. Miller, 2000). Other terms include “mixed voice” (Henrich, 2006), “headmix”
(Kochis-Jennings, 2008), “medium” register (Marchesi, reported in Large & Murry,
1978) or “head” register (Titze, 2000).

Middle register can be thought of as a timbre transition that enables singers to
comfortably traverse the range of pitches between the first and second passaggi. Use of
middle register allows singers to achieve a blend of the acoustic power present in chest
register and the comfortable laryngeal configuration of head register that facilitates
higher frequency vibration.
Middle register phonation can be identified as distinct from phonation in chest
register and falsetto register by its unique vocal quality (Large & Murry, 1978). Titze
(2000) calls this register head voice, referring to a balanced middle register that classical
singers are taught to use that sounds like “a mixture of chest voice and falsetto” (p. 302).
Phonation in middle register has a “rich yet light quality” (Caldwell & Wall, 2001, p. 56)
and sounds “fuller than falsetto” (Titze, 2000, p. 302).
Upper Register
The “upper” register is typically used to produce pitches in the segment of the
female head voice just beyond the second passaggio, ranging from F5-Bb5 or C6 (700
Hz-1048 Hz) (D. Miller, 2000). Upper register is often referred to as “falsetto” phonation
(Henrich, 2006; Titze, 2000) by voice scientists and sometimes called “head” voice
(Caldwell & Wall, 2001), “loft” (Henrich, 2006; Walker, 1988) or “light mechanism”
20
(Vennard, 1967) by vocal pedagogues. McCoy (2004) names this register “cricothyroid-
dominant production”.
The timbre of upper register is perceived as thinner and lighter when compared to
the lower registers of the female singing voice (Thurman, Welch, Theimer & Klitzke,
2004). Caldwell and Wall (2001) assign a versatile and diverse spectrum of vocal
qualities to the upper register of the female head voice, ranging from “pure, sweet clear,
spinning, fluty, veiled, limpid, lyric, floating colors to ringing, projected, brilliant, warm,
covered, dramatic colors” (p. 59).
Whistle Register
The uppermost register of the female singing voice has been assigned many
different names by vocal pedagogues and scientists. Most of this terminology is

connected to specific vocal timbre characteristics, or what the singer sounds like when
producing sounds in this register. In a letter to his wife, dated March 24, 1770, Leopold
Mozart wrote of soprano Lucrezia Aguari’s spectacular high notes, describing the vocal
quality as a “little [softer] than the lower notes, but she sang them beautifully, like the
fluted sounds of an organ” (reported in Walker, 1986, p. 7). Whistle register phonation’s
fluty quality is consistently described within the scientific and pedagogical literature
(Garnier et al., 2012; Titze, 2000). Other descriptions include: “well-focused,
penetrating, squeaky, whistle-like” (Ware, 1998, p. 117), and a tone quality that
“resembles the sound of a whistle” (McKinney, 1994, p. 105) or is comparable to the
“ringing of a small, high pitched bell; or the echo of a high, distant pitch” (R. Miller,
1986, p. 148). Ware (1998) also describes the sound as “floating, disembodied” (p.117);
Caldwell and Wall (2001) add “brilliant” (p. 60) and “penetrating” (p. 60) to the list.
These varied perceptual characteristics may depend upon the style of repertoire and the
expertise of the performer. The diverse descriptions offered in scientific and pedagogical
21
writing find common in ground in assigning a soft, light, clear, and focused vocal quality
to whistle register.
Terminology and Problems

The most widely used term to describe the uppermost register of the female voice
is “whistle voice”, or “whistle register” (Caldwell & Wall, 2001; Coffin, 1980;
McKinney, 1994; Titze, 2000; Vennard, 1967; Ware, 1998). Though they use other
terms as well, McCoy (2004) and Austin (2008) reference the term “whistle register” in
their pedagogy manuals during their discussions of the female upper range extension. In
addition, the term “whistle register” appears in scientific studies on vocal register that
observe both trained and untrained singer-subjects or excised larynges (Garnier et al.,
2012; Henrich et al., 2005; Henrich et al., 2003; Svec et al., 2008; Titze, 2008; Van den
Berg, 1963; Walker, 1986 & 1988). Walker (1986) suggests that the use of this term
stems from the (since disproven) belief that during phonation in whistle register the vocal
folds were stretched so tightly that they stopped vibrating, creating a “whistle tone” as the
air passed through the tensed oval opening of the glottis (p. 7).
Although it is the most commonly recognized term to describe the uppermost
register of the female voice, use of the label “whistle register” has been met with some
controversy among voice scientists and pedagogues. Some scientists dismiss the name as
“misleading” (D. Miller & Schutte, 1993, pg. 206). R. Miller (1996) claimed that
“whistle register” is a term best avoided, because it is also used to describe the “laryngeal
whistle3…not subject to control…not of pleasing timbre and…not useful to the singer”

(p. 148). Both of these writers prefer to use the term “flageolet”.
3Laryngeal whistle, as described by Willard Zemlin, author of Speech and Hearing Science:
Anatomy and Physiology (1981): “Many children are able to produce a very clear, flute like,
laryngeal whistle. The vocal folds are extremely tense and the glottis appears as a very narrow
[about 1 mm] slit through which the air flows”.
22
According to Walker (1986), Leopold Mozart was the first to invoke the term
“flageolet” register, in reference to soprano Lucrezia Aguari’s production of
exceptionally high notes. McKinney, Ware and Austin also reference “flageolet”
[register] in their pedagogical writing; though in their writing the register in question is
initially introduced as “whistle” or “flute” (Austin, 2008; McKinney, 1994; Ware, 1998).
Coffin (1980), who uses the term “whistle register” in his pedagogy manual and vocal
exercises, acknowledges the use of the term “flageolet” and attributes its usage to Anna
Lankow of Berlin, 1902.
“Flute” register, “bell” voice, “small” register, and “piccolo” register are terms
that have frequently been used to identify the highest register of the female voice that are
also descriptive of the register’s unique vocal timbre (McCoy, 2004; McKinney, 1994; R.
Miller, 2000; Walker, 1986; Ware, 1998). “Small” register (Vennard, 1967; McKinney,
1994), “bird-tone” (Stark, 1999), “echo” voice (R. Miller, 2000), “alt” voice (Emil-
Behnke, 1945) and “superfalsetto” (McKinney, 1994) are less common terms that have
been used to describe this register in vocal pedagogy texts.
Terms evocative of this register’s distinctive vocal timbre are used in foreign
schools of singing as well. The Italian school of singing uses the terms “voce di
campanello” (‘voice of the bell’) and “voce di capelli”4 (‘voice of the hair’) to label this
register (Coffin, 1980; R. Miller, 1997). In French vocal pedagogy, the terms “petit
registre” (‘small register’), “flûte registre” (‘flute register’), and “registre de flageolet”
(‘flageolet register’) are prevalent (R. Miller, 1997). “Pfeifestimme” and “die zweite
Höhe”, which translate to ‘pipe voice’ and ‘the second height [or pitch]’, are both used in
the German singing tradition (R. Miller, 1997).
4Coffin (1980) attributes this term to Gioachino Rossini, adding that Rossini did not like the
quality of the timbre. (p. 34)
23
The two terms that appear with the most prevalence in scientific research and
American classical vocal pedagogy are “whistle” register and “flageolet”. D. Miller and
Schutte (1993) use the term flageolet “because of the parallel with flageolet tones
(harmonics) in stringed instruments”, stating that “the image of producing very high
notes with a lighter touch, while the string vibrates in a higher and somewhat elusive
mode of oscillation, is apt” (p. 211). While it is essential that the terminology should
have some connection to the physiological sensation that a singer perceives when
producing tones in this register, the term “flageolet” has several different musical
meanings, which could be confusing to a singer.5 “Whistle” register is a term that occurs
often in the scientific literature (Garnier et al., 2012; Henrich et al., 2003; Henrich et al.,
2005; Svec et al., 2008; Titze, 2008; Van den Berg, 1963; Walker 1986 & 1988), and has
familiarity within the vocal pedagogy community (Caldwell & Wall, 2001; Coffin, 1980;
McKinney, 1994; Titze, 2000; Vennard, 1967; Ware, 1998). In addition, the exercises
used by voice teachers that incorporate whistle register phonation for conditioning the
upper range of the female voice (PWRP exercises) use the /u/ vowel to elicit whistle
register phonation (Austin, 2008; Caldwell & Wall, 2001; Coffin, 1980). The /u/ vowel
is produced by a very small, round lip opening and hollow sensation in vocal tract,
similar to the pharyngeal shape used for actual whistling. For these reasons, the term
“whistle” register will be used hereafter to describe the register in question.
5The Oxford Dictionary of Music gives the following definitions for ‘flageolet’: (1) A duct flute.
Simple versions, often known today as the ‘tin whistle’ or ‘pennywhistle’ have been used
worldwide since the Stone Ages. (2) Late 16th-century instrument of end-blown flute type, with
four finger-holes and two thumb-holes. (3) Soft organ stop of 2’ length and pitch. (3) Flageolet
notes is a term applied to harmonics on a stringed instrument, produced by light stopping of the
string at natural points of vibration, and so called because the resultant high thin sound is said to
resemble that of the flageolet. Flageolet (n.d.). In The Oxford Dictionary of Music online.
Retrieved from http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.
24
Vocal Quality of Whistle Register: Perceptual

Characteristics
The difference between head register and whistle register phonation can be
identified perceptually by singers and auditors by the classification of timbre or tone
quality (Walker, 1986 & 1988). Walker (1986 & 1988) asked expert and naive auditors
to perceptually discriminate between isoperimetric tone pairs on pitches between B5 (989
Hz) and G6 (1568 Hz) produced by seven trained sopranos (either professional singers or
advanced graduate-level students) in whistle register and head register phonation (judged
as “same” or “different”). Forty tone pair samples were collected and divided into 10 of
the following categories: whistle/whistle, head/head, head/whistle and whistle/head. The
categories were ordered according to the singers’ determination of the type of phonation
they used to produce each tone sample. Measures were taken to equalize the SPL for
each tone pair so intensity levels would not influence the auditors’ judgments of vocal
quality. The 40 tone pair samples were played for two groups of auditors. The first
group of auditors consisted of 17 university/college level vocal music instructors. The
second group, made up of 20 non-music major students from the general student
population of East Central University in Ada, Oklahoma, served as the control group. In
order to measure judge reliability, the test was conducted twice. Both groups identified
whistle register phonations as “different” from head register phonations at a level

significantly above chance (chance = 50%). This data indicates that the head and whistle
registers are perceptually identifiable entities.
In addition, Walker’s (1986 & 1988) results suggest that singers are able to
perceptually identify the sensations felt during the production of whistle register
phonation as different from sensations felt when singing tones in other registers. The
term whistle register is often descriptive of a spontaneous type of phonation caused by an
abrupt register transition that occurs when sopranos vocalize above the staff; however,
Walker’s (1986 & 1988) research shows that female singers were able to produce
phonation in whistle register that was recognized as different from phonation in head
25
register (not only by the panel of auditors, but also by the singers) in the same range of
pitches and on command. Stated another way, it was possible for the singers to choose
which register to use for the production of pitches in the given range, and the singers
were able to make deliberate and perceivable differentiations between the production of
phonations in head and whistle register.
Early Hypotheses of Vocal Fold Behavior During

Whistle Register Phonation
Of all of the singing registers, whistle register is the one that receives the least
exploration in vocal pedagogy manuals. Historically, the physiological characteristics of
whistle register have eluded voice scientists as well. With the available equipment it was
often difficult to make an accurate observation of the larynx, due to the extreme speeds at
which the vocal folds vibrate during the production of high pitches associated with
whistle register phonation (reported in Walker, 1986). As technology improved, so did
the methods used to observe the physiological characteristics of whistle register
phonation, which has led to improved knowledge of how female singers produce the
highest pitches in their range.
The earliest scientific investigations of whistle register were performed by
Behnke, Shakespeare and Proschowsky during the late 19th and early 20th centuries
(reported in Walker, 1986). Their research was based on laryngoscopic observations, and
describes laryngeal behavior that resembles what was called the open-glottis mechanism.
The open-glottis theory supposed that the vocal folds did not close or vibrate during the
production of whistle register, and that the flute-like tones of whistle register were the
result of eddies generated in the glottis, as if the air were “whistling” between the lips of
the vocal folds (Walker, 1986).
The conclusions drawn from these early studies proved to be problematic because
vocal fold vibration at the very high frequencies used to produce whistle register was
difficult to accurately observe with the equipment available at the time. When viewed
26
with a laryngoscope, the vocal folds appeared to pucker during phonation higher than 750
Hz (G5). Vennard (1967) states:
Until the vibrations in falsetto were studied by stroboscope and

Fastax camera it was assumed that the vocal lips puckered like the
lips of a whistler for the highest tones. Indeed the highest register
in a woman’s voice was called the ‘whistle register.’…But we can
understand that when the larynx is vibrating at high frequencies it
may not have time to open fully in each vibration. It may also not
close completely at any time either. The result will appear to the
unaided eye as a puckered opening through which whistling might
be taking place. Early drawings, as in Behnke, Proschowsky,
Shakespeare, and others, illustrate this concept. (p. 67)
Early studies by Garde (1951) and Luchsinger & Dubois (1956) viewed vocal fold
behavior with strobe-laryngoscope and showed some vibration of the vocal folds during
high frequency phonation (reported in Walker, 1986); however, Walker (1986) suggests
both studies are problematic because “stroboscopic photography does not demonstrate the
actual details of each vibratory cycle as does ultra high speed photography, but it merely
shows a facsimile of the vibratory pattern averaged over many successive cycles” and the
results are “limited by the necessity of subjective evaluations by the examiner” (p. 53).
Van den Berg (1963) also suggests that phonation in whistle register resulted not
from the vibration of the vocal folds, but rather from the formation of eddies in a
triangular opening between the arytenoids and subsequent cavity resonance. He classifies
whistle register as “very high (up to 2500 cps [cycles per second]) and weak tones at
small flows of air, up to about 75 cm3/sec, and small subglottic pressures, up to about 3
cm of water” (pp. 153-154). Van den Berg’s report is based upon the results of his
experiments on excised human larynges.

Walker (1986) reports that “the open glottis theory of whistle register has been
both demonstrated and refuted through stroboscopic/laryngoscopic investigation” (p. 17)
and suggests further observation of the uppermost register of the female voice by
electromyography or fiber optics laryngoscope; however, he notes the problematic nature
of both methods at the time of his study.

27
Experimental Evidence: Laryngoscopic,

Electrophysiological, and Spectral Observations During
Compared to chest and falsetto registers, there is relatively little scientific
evidence of the biomechanical properties of the larynx during whistle register phonation.
Recent studies have investigated the acoustic characteristics (D. Miller & Schutte, 1993;
Walker, 1986 & 1988), glottal waveform characteristics (Garnier et al., 2012; D. Miller &
Schutte, 1993; Svec et al., 2008) and characteristics of vocal fold vibration (Garnier et al.,
2012; Svec et al., 2008) during whistle register phonation.
Vocal Fold Vibration in Whistle Register

During whistle register phonation the vocal folds are fully elongated and show
vibration along the entire length of the vocal folds (Svec et al., 2008). Recent scientific
studies also support the hypothesis that the glottis may not close completely during
whistle register phonation (Garnier et al., 2012; Svec et al., 2008). Svec, Sundberg &
Hertegard (2008) made laryngoscopic observations using videostroboscopy and
videokymography (VKG) during phonation in whistle register for one untrained female
singer6 capable of producing three distinct voice qualities (chest, head and whistle
registers). The subject was observed singing ascending scales of sustained tones and
pitch glides starting from the lowest tones in chest register up to the highest tones
possible and was encouraged not to try to avoid pitch jumps. To allow for optimal
observation of the vocal folds during videostroboscopy and VKG, the subject performed
all tasks on the vowel /e/. Svec et al. detected two head-to-whistle register transitions,
occurring around the tones E5 and B5. The first transition was accompanied by a
spontaneous pitch jump at 700 Hz (around E5). The second head-to-whistle register
6In addition to the one untrained subject, five trained female singers were originally recruited for
the study; however, the trained singers exhibited no audible transition from head register to
whistle register and were unable to produce pitches above 1000 Hz during laryngoscopy.
28
transition occurred when the fundamental frequency increased above 1000 Hz (around
B5). Stroboscopic views of the vocal folds vibrating at their highest pitch in whistle
register (G6, 1590 Hz) showed maximal elongation and clear vibrations along the entire
length of the folds, with maximum amplitudes located approximately in the middle of the
membranous part of the vocal folds. The scientists observed that “when maximally
closed, there remained a glottal gap along the whole vocal-fold length; the vocal folds did
not touch each other during vibration” (p.351). This study was the first to report visual
observation of fully vibrating vocal folds during whistle register phonation, and this
finding contradicts the “open glottis” theories presented in the early scientific literature.
Garnier, Henrich, Crevier-Buchman, Vincent, Smith & Wolfe (2012) obtained
endoscopic observations for one untrained singer performing glissando and decrescendo
tasks in her upper pitch range. The tasks were recorded with high-speed video (2000
frames/second at a resolution of 256x256 pixels). The subject performed a descending
glissando from D7 (2350 Hz) to E4 (330 Hz). A stretched glottis with a small amplitude
opening between the vocal folds was observed from the highest pitch of the glide through
Eb6. Between Eb6 and G5 no glottal contact was detected and the video showed
noticeable constriction of the epilaryngeal tube that corresponded to an abrupt pitch-jump
around G5. Glottal contact was detected again below G5. In addition, the subject
performed a sustained decrescendo on the vowel /a/ at F5-F#5 (~700 Hz) which produced
a pitch-break and a change from “full head” to “fluty resonant” voice quality.
Endoscopic observation showed a distinct change in laryngeal configuration where no
glottal contact occurred after the pitch-break that corresponded to the change in vocal
quality.
Glottal Waveform in Whistle Register

Recent research has made use of the non-invasive practice of electroglottography
(EGG) to more accurately measure the behavior of the vocal folds during whistle register
29
phonation. Analysis of the EGG signal for phonation in whistle register have shown
smaller amplitude of vibration and reduced vocal fold contact area when compared to
phonation in head register (Garnier et al., 2012; Henrich et al., 2003; D. Miller & Schutte,
1993; Svec et al., 2008). Phonation in whistle register is also characterized by a
significantly longer opening phase (greater OQ values) than phonation in head register
(Garnier et al., 2012; Henrich et al., 2003; D. Miller & Schutte, 1993; Svec et al., 2008).
Garnier et al. (2012) investigated acoustic and electroglottographic measurements

of 12 trained sopranos (ages 19-29) performing two vocal tasks: ascending/descending
glissandi beginning on pitches around C4-E4 (262 Hz-330 Hz) over the entire tessitura
region that lies above the first passaggio, and sustained phonation (4 seconds) on an /a/
vowel (beginning at A4, through the highest pitch they could produce). Only one register
transition (characterized by a significant change in amplitude of the EGG signal)
occurred in the upper pitch range of the female singing voice. The researchers labeled
this the M2-M3 transition: in vocal pedagogy terminology M2 corresponds to the
laryngeal configuration used for female head register (male falsetto) and M3 corresponds
to the laryngeal configuration used for whistle register. The transition occurred over
several semi-tones within the interval of Eb5-D6 (622 Hz-1175 Hz), the upper and lower
pitch limits of transition were dependent upon the training and expertise of the singer.
This transition was observed as a change in laryngeal behavior, characterized by a
significant reduction in the EGG signal amplitude that can be interpreted to represent a
decrease in vocal fold contact. In 10 subjects, maximum open quotient (OQ) values were
reached at the upper limit of the transition and OQ tended to increase with F0 during the
laryngeal transition (the pitch range in which the EGG decreased) on the glissando tasks.
The maximum OQ values were reported to be around 0.9 on average (all were greater
than 0.8). Above the transition, OQ values decreased with increasing F0 in seven subjects
and remained constant for one. The contact speed quotient (Qcs) shows the difference in
contact speed between the opening and closing phases of glottal contact and reflects the
30
symmetry of the glottal wave. In 10 subjects, Qcs values decreased consistently with
increasing F0 during the register transition on the glissando tasks, indicating that the EGG
waveform became more symmetrical. No significant change in Qcs was observed above
the transition. For six subjects, this glottal behavior was the same during sustained
phonation. Four subjects showed an overlap range in which they were able to produce
sustained pitches in both head register (labeled “full head” quality) and whistle register
(labeled “fluty resonant” quality). For all four subjects, observation of the EGG signal
showed two distinctly different amplitudes for same-pitched phonation in “full head” and
“fluty resonant” qualities, and consistent differences in all glottal parameters were seen
during comparison of the two phonation qualities on sustained pitches produced the
overlap range. OQ values were significantly higher for “fluty resonant” quality than for
“full head”. EGG amplitude and Qcs values were significantly lower for “fluty resonant”
quality than for “full head”. Phonation in “fluty resonant” quality was also characterized
by weaker energy in high frequency harmonics compared to “full head” quality. For all
four subjects, OQ and Qcs values for sustained phonation in “full head” quality were
similar to values that occurred below the laryngeal transition in the glissando tasks,
whereas “fluty resonant” quality corresponded to the values that occurred above the
laryngeal transition, suggesting that the “full head” quality was produced in head register
(M2) and the “fluty resonant” quality was produced in whistle register (M3). In all four
subjects, production of these distinct vocal qualities corresponded to a change in
laryngeal mechanism and was not associated with different resonant tuning strategies.
Svec et al. (2008) reported OQ values of 1.0 during phonation in whistle register
for one untrained female singer capable of producing three distinct voice qualities (chest,
head and whistle registers). VKG images of the tone occurring immediately after the first
head-to-whistle transition (Ab5) exhibited smaller amplitudes of vocal fold vibration and
showed no closed phase (open quotient = 1.0). The vibrational pattern observed during
whistle register phonation on pitches at and above 1000 Hz showed no closed phase;
31
however, the observation of sharp peaks at the maximal opening phase support that
despite the lack of contact, the vocal folds do vibrate at these high pitches.
D. Miller and Schutte (1993) studied the highest segment of the female singing
range in order to present a description of characteristic patterns of vocal fold movement
and of the first two vocal tract formants during whistle register phonation. Two sopranos
(both professional classical singers) participated in the study. One soprano (subject A),
in her early 30’s, had “enough ease and confidence in producing the highest segment [of
the voice] that she risks singing sustained F6’s in public” (p. 208). The other singer
(subject B) was identified as a soprano who “does not sing so high [as subject A], but the
fact that she can (and does in public) still produce exemplary high notes in her middle
50’s is taken as evidence of a strong vocal technique” (p. 208). A microphone placed in
front of the each subject was used to measure an audio signal and sound pressure level
during two vocal tasks (upward leaps of a major sixth, followed by a return to the original
pitch; and a one-octave chromatic scale produced at contrasting dynamic levels – first
piano and then forte). Wide-band miniature pressure transducers mounted on a catheter
passed via the nose through the glottis were used to measure subglottal and supraglottal
pressures during phonation. Vocal fold contact area was measured by EGG. Observation
of the subglottal pressure and EGG signals during whistle register phonation suggested
that the glottal source function was different from that of head register phonation.
First, analysis of the EGG signal recorded during whistle register and head
register phonations produced by both singers showed (a) significant reduction in the
vocal fold contact area during phonation in whistle register compared to phonation in
head register (b) the open phase of the vocal fold oscillation cycle is significantly longer
than the closed phase during whistle register phonation. Second, during phonation of the
highest pitches (those produced in whistle register) the researchers found small-
amplitude, sinusoidal modulations of subglottal pressure and marked reduction in vocal
fold contact area that they speculated were indicative of reduced vocal fold oscillation
32
and a constantly open glottis. Third, spectral analysis of two pitches – A5 (880 Hz) sung
in head register, and B5 (988 Hz) sung in whistle register – showed that the subjects
matched the first formant (F1) to the fundamental frequency (F0) at 880 Hz; however, the
subjects allowed F1 to drop below the F0 at 988 Hz, the pitch point where tones were
perceived as whistle register, suggesting that the vocal tract exerts influence on voice
quality when F0 exceeds F1. No reduction in SPL (intensity) occurred when F1 dropped
below F0; in fact both sopranos were able to crescendo (without a large increase in
subglottal pressure) through the transition from head register to whistle register.
Acoustic analysis also showed a convergence of the first and second formants (F1 and F2)
near the fundamental frequency in both phonations.
Compared to phonation in other registers whistle register uses less airflow

(Walker, 1986 & 1988). Walker analyzed the airflow rates for sixty-two isoperimetric
tone pairs produced by four singer-subjects. Mean flow rate (MFR) values were obtained
for each tone by observing the total volume of air used during phonation and the duration
of the phonation. Measurements were taken while the subjects phonated into a
mouthpiece that was coupled to a Pulmo-Lab Spirometer Series 4000. The spirometer
showed a visual display of the amount of air passed through the mouthpiece during
phonation. The durations of the phonations were measured by a digital time counter that
was operated by the subjects. Investigation of the air-flow rates revealed that a
significant change in air-flow occurred between head register phonations and whistle
register phonations in all subjects. For three of the four subjects, the MFR for tones
produced in head register was greater than for tones produced in whistle register. The
outlying subject exhibited greater MFR in whistle register. The air-flow rates were found
to be consistent within each subject, but highly variable between subjects. Walker noted
that during the production of the tone pairs all subjects had difficulty keeping the SPL
values constant for head register phonation and whistle register phonation.
33
Acoustic Properties of Whistle Register

Walker’s research (1986 & 1988) established whistle register as a perceptually
identifiable register of the female voice. In addition to demonstrating that phonation in
whistle register can be perceived by singers and listeners as different from phonation in
head register, Walker quantified the perceptual differences between the two registers.
Walker analyzed the spectral and signal displays of the recorded tone pair audio samples
from the seven soprano subjects at seven frequency levels (B5-G6, or all of the semitones
between 989-1568 Hz). Comparison of the total number of harmonics present in each
sample revealed that for all subjects the tones produced in head register possessed a
greater number of overall harmonics (mean = 9.69) than the tones produced in whistle
register (mean = 7.87). Head register phonations were also characterized as having a
greater highest observed harmonic (determined by locating the highest observable

frequency on the spectral frequency display). The mean amplitudes of the highest
observed harmonic were 12.46 for head register and 10.42 for whistle register.
Observable Pitch Range for Whistle Register Phonation

Depending on the literature source, whistle register is typically used for the
production of pitches above B5, extending all the way to G7 (988 Hz-3140 Hz) (Henrich,
2006; D. Miller & Schutte, 1993; R. Miller, 2000; Titze, 2008; Walker, 1986 & 1988).
Whistle register phonation is commonly used by sopranos to produce the uppermost
pitches in their range; consequently, most scientific studies investigating the properties of
whistle register report measurement of only high-pitched phonations (above B5).
However, Garnier et al. (2012) reported an overlap range of as much as one octave (C5-
C6) where singers (regardless of their vocal expertise) could choose to produce tones
using head register or whistle register, depending upon the desired vocal quality, which is
one octave lower than what is usually reported for the whistle register. Garnier’s findings
support that whistle register phonation “should not be considered as a marginal type of
voice production found only in a few singers at extreme pitches” (p. 960).
34
Summary
In summary, what can be determined from a review of the scientific literature
regarding whistle register is: 1) whistle register phonation can be identified as different
from head register for same pitch phonation, 2) whistle register phonation is produced
using a different laryngeal configuration than head register phonation, 3) singers are able
to purposefully produce a “fluty resonant” vocal quality – distinct from “full head” vocal
quality – using the laryngeal configuration for whistle register phonation at pitches as low
as C5-D5, 4) whistle register phonation has fewer harmonics than head register
phonation, and the highest observable harmonic for whistle register phonation is lower
than that for head register phonation, 5) EGG signal analysis of whistle register phonation
shows reduced amplitude of vibration, reduced vocal fold contact area and a significantly
longer open phase than for pitches produced in head register phonation (three studies
reporting OQ values of 1.0), 6) a constantly open glottis and vibration along the full
length of the vocal folds was reported during laryngoscopic observation of high
frequency whistle register phonation, 7) airflow rates are lower in whistle register
phonation than in head register phonation.
Table 1.1 compares the differences in airflow, intrinsic laryngeal muscle activity,
glottal adduction, vocal fold vibratory characteristics, and acoustic properties in whistle,
head/falsetto, and chest register. In addition, this table lists the vocal qualities associated
with the use of these registers in the overlap pitch range where phonation in more than
one register is possible.
Table 1.2 lists all of the titles given to the uppermost register of the female
singing voice in the pedagogical and scientific literature (referred to as “whistle register”
in this paper). The origin of the chosen title is identified and authors that use or
acknowledge the title are noted. Authors and sources listed in the “Primary Reference”
category use the corresponding term to define pitches produced in the uppermost register
of the female singing voice, authors and sources listed in the “Secondary Reference”
35
category acknowledge the usage of the corresponding term, but choose to use a different
title when referring to pitches produced in the uppermost register of the female singing
voice.
Table 1.1 Characteristics of Whistle Register Phonation Compared to Chest and

Head/Falsetto Registers
Chest Head/Falsetto Whistle
Airflow Less than in falsettoGreater than in chest Less than in

and whistle falsetto
Intrinsic Greater muscle Less muscle activity
Laryngeal activity for same for same pitch
Muscle Activity pitch phonation than phonation than in No data
(EMG) in falsetto chest
Glottal Greater than for Less than for
Adduction falsetto and whistle Less than for chest falsetto and chest
Greater OQ than
Greater OQ than for for falsetto and
Vibratory Greater CQ, greater chest, less OQ than chest, possible that
Characteristics skewing than for for whistle. Less glottis never closes
(EGG) falsetto and whistle skewing and shorter (OQ = 1.0). Most
opening time than for symmetrical wave
chest
shape
Less partials
Shallow spectral Steep spectral slope compared to
slope with greater with less partials falsetto, less
number of partials compared to chest, energy in high
Acoustic compared to falsetto greater number of frequency
Properties and whistle, greater partials than whistle, harmonics than
energy in high
less energy in high falsetto, harmonics
frequency
harmonics than frequency harmonics have weaker
falsetto, weak F0 than chest, strong F0 relationship to F0
than in falsetto
D4-D5 (240 Hz-587 Hz) C5-G6 (523 Hz-1568 Hz)
Overlap Range
in the Female “Classical “Full
Voice “Fluty resonant”
“Belt” technique middle” head”
quality quality quality
36
Table 1.2 Whistle Register Terminology
Register Label Origin Primary Reference Secondary Reference

Whistle Supposed relationship Caldwell & Wall, McCoy, Sundberg
to laryngeal function Coffin, Garnier,
required for producing Henrich, McKinney,
pitches in this register Svec, Titze, Van den
(Walker, 1986); Berg, Vennard,
perceived vocal quality Walker, Wall, Ware
Flageolet Attributed to Leopold McCoy, D. Miller & Coffin, Garnier,
Mozart (1770); parallel Schutte; R. Miller McKinney, Ware
to “flageolet” tones
produced on stringed
instruments (D. Miller
& Schutte, 1993)
Flute Supposed relationship Austin, Brown Garnier, McKinney, D.
to laryngeal function Miller & Schutte; R.
required for producing Miller, Stark, Walker,
pitches in this register Ware
(Walker, 1986);
perceived vocal quality
Bell Perceived vocal quality Garnier, McCoy, D.
Miller & Schutte; R.
Miller, Walker, Ware
Small Perceived vocal quality Garnier, McKinney,
Vennard
Piccolo Perceived vocal quality R. Miller, Ware
Bird-tone Perceived vocal quality Stark
Pipe Perceived vocal quality Garnier
Echo Perceived vocal quality R. Miller
Alt From the Italian term Emil-Behnke

altissimo, meaning
“high”
Tiny oo Physiological means of Marchesi Caldwell & Wall
production, attributed
to Mathilde Marchesi
(19th century)
Super Whistle Track .33 on Coffin’s Coffin Caldwell & Wall
favorable vowel chart
(1980)
Superfalsetto Perceived vocal quality McKinney
Register 4 CoMeT (1983) Hollien Brown
37
Table 1.2 Continued
Register Label Origin Primary Reference Secondary Reference

Voce di Italian school of R. Miller
campanello singing
Voce di capelli Attrib. to Rossini Coffin
Petit registre French school of R. Miller
singing
Flûte registre French school of R. Miller
singing
Registre de French school of R. Miller
flageolet singing
Pfeifestimme German school of R. Miller
singing
Die zweite Höhe German school of R. Miller
singing
38
The Second Passaggio Transition in the Female Voice

This study investigated the influence of whistle register exercises on challenges
encountered in the second passaggio, the transition that occurs between the middle and
upper registers of the female head voice. The range of the second passaggio usually
occurs between C#5 and Ab5 (554 Hz and 831 Hz) but varies depending upon the voice
classification of the singer (Coffin, 1980; Echternach et al., 2008; D. Miller, 2000; R.
Miller, 2000). At the high end of this pitch range the fundamental frequency (F0)
approaches the frequency of the first formant (F1), around G5 or 750 Hz (Echternach et
al., 2008). It has been shown that sopranos use vowel modification (the use of favorable
vowels) for pitches above G5, and some scientists suggest that the second passaggio
transition is related to vocal tract tuning (D. Miller, 2000; D. Miller & Schutte, 1993).
However, recent research by Garnier et al. (2012) supports that the second passaggio
transition of the female singing voice is a result of a change in laryngeal behavior.
It has been suggested that a change in the shape of the vocal tract will influence
the upper register transition at the second passaggio in the female voice (Echternach et
al., 2008; D. Miller, 2000). Echternach, Sundberg, Arndt, Markl, Schumacher & Richter
(2008) reported on the use of dynamic real-time magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to
determine if female singers change the shape of the vocal tract at the first and second
passaggi. Four female singers participated in the study; all were sopranos with at least
four years of university voice training. The subjects were asked to sing ascending major
scales on the vowel /a/ through both their lower and upper register transitions. Both
register transitions were unanimously identified by a panel of four professional raters,

although the pitch points for both register transitions were highly variable between the
subjects. The transition from chest to middle register occurred between C#4 and A4 (278
Hz and 440 Hz), and the shift into the upper register was identified between C#5 and G#5
(554 Hz and 831 Hz). Measurements of the vocal tract (lip opening, jaw opening, height
of tongue dorsum, jaw protrusion, oropharynx width and elevation of uvula) were taken
39
during both the upper and lower register transitions. No uniform changes of vocal tract
shape were observed during either register transition. While the research of Echternach
et al. was not able to demonstrate that singers make a uniform change in the shape of the
vocal tract during the first and second passaggi transitions, it was found that the subjects
did make considerable adjustments to the shape of the vocal tract in the pitch range just
beyond the second passaggio transition (around 750 Hz), as F0 approached the frequency
of the first formant (F1). The resonant frequency of the first formant is determined by the
sung vowel (F1 for the /a/ vowel is around 750 Hz). The resonance adjustments observed
in frequencies at and above 750 Hz included widening of the lip and jaw openings (thus
increasing the first formant frequency), widening of the pharynx (raising the second
formant frequency), and elevation of the uvula.

A recent investigation by Garnier et al. (2012) suggests that the second passaggio
transition is a change in laryngeal configuration from head [falsetto] register to whistle
register phonation (labeled the M2-M3 transition). The study’s findings support the
presence of two changes in vocal tract adjustments in the upper range of the female
singing voice: one at the lower limit of F1:F0 (around C5) and one at the upper pitch limit
of F1:F0 (around C6). However, the observation of reduced glottal contact associated
with whistle register phonation occurred before the upper F1:F0 limit was reached,
suggesting a laryngeal transition in the upper range that is independent of the resonance
adjustments. Garnier et al. suggest that when applied to the register scheme for the
female singing voice outlined by R. Miller (a pedagogical model frequently used by voice
teachers) the falsetto register (M2) glottal behavior likely corresponds with lower middle
(Eb4-C#5) and upper middle (C#5-F#5) register phonation and the whistle register (M3)
glottal behavior likely corresponds with upper register (F#5-C#6) and flageolet (above
C#6) phonation.
40
Pressed Phonation and Other Vocal Challenges

Encountered in the Second Passaggio Transition
As a female singer ascends through the range of her second passaggio, the
activity of the pitch-control muscles (thyroarytenoid and cricothyroid) causes the vocal
folds to become longer and thinner. The singer must adjust breath management to
accommodate the subsequent changes in vocal fold closure. Garnier et al.’s (2012)
observation of a change in glottal behavior at the second passaggio transition further
complicates the smoothing of this register shift.

Many female vocalists experience difficulty in the second passaggio at some
point in their training. One common challenge a female singer faces as she ascends
through the second passaggio into the upper pitch range is coordinating the flow of air
with the changing shape of the glottis. In some cases the singer may note a feeling of
tightness or constriction, remarking that the voice feels “stuck in the throat”. Thurman,
Welch, Theimer & Klitzke (2004) list “overcompensation, that is, increased contraction
intensity in the internal larynx muscles (and typically some of the external larynx
muscles) and increased lung-air pressure” (p. 43) as one of the possible laryngeal
adjustments inexperienced singers make when traversing the passaggio range. Thurman
et al. (2004) speculate that singers make this particular adjustment “so that the acoustic
interference can be overpowered and continuation of vocal sound can be preserved” (p.
43). The resulting sound may be heavy, overly loud, harsh, throaty, forced or squeezed –
often referred to as “pressed” phonation in scientific research and singing manuals.
“Pressed” phonation occurs when the vocal folds are drawn tightly together
during phonation, constricting the flow of air through the glottis (Titze, 2000, p. 379).
This type of phonation is characterized by a strained vocal quality and is indicative of
vocal fold hyper-function, or over-involvement of the muscles that are used to produce
the voice (Hillman, Holmberg, Perkell, Walsh, & Vaughan, 1989). Continuous
phonation using pressed voice leads to vocal fatigue that, if untreated, could result in
inflammation and injury to the vocal folds (David, 1995; Hillman et al., 1989; McCoy,
41
2004). Vocal fold nodules, vocal polyps and contact ulcers are types of growths that
appear on the surfaces of the vocal folds and are thought to be caused in part by
mechanical stress that can occur as a result of continuous forceful adduction or repeated
collision of the tissues of opposing vocal folds (Titze, 2000, p. 350-352).
Another challenge female singers may face as they navigate the transition through
the second passaggio is a lack of adequate breath support accompanied by the perception
of excess noise in the voice. Thurman et al. (2004) list “under-compensation” as a

possible laryngeal adjustment that occurs when inexperienced singers attempt to pass
through the passaggio. The resulting sound may be described as airy, weak, or shallow –
referred to as “breathy” phonation in scientific research and singing manuals. A breathy
voice quality is indicative of vocal fold hypo-function and occurs when the vocal folds
fail to approximate efficiently.
Strained or breathy phonation heard as singers negotiate the second passaggio
transition may be indicative of underlying vocal problems that need to be addressed in the
voice studio. Singers who struggle with vocal fold hyper- or hypo-function experience
problems such as poor intonation, undesirable tone quality and vocal fatigue. These
vocal problems can also manifest as lifts or cracks in the voice (Thurman et al., 2004).
At the least, these conditions can cause discomfort, frustration and self-doubt in a singer.
In extreme cases, prolonged phonation with an overly pressed or breathy vocal quality
can lead to vocal damage. Both of these conditions suggest a lack of coordination
between airflow and vocal fold adduction. Coordination of airflow and vocal fold
adduction are a necessity for singers who wish to pursue a professional career in
performance, as well as for those who wish to teach others to sing healthfully. Efficient
management of the elements of breath and vocal fold vibration is also required for the
execution of a smooth transition through the second passaggio, a challenge faced by
many female classical vocalists.

42
Whistle Register Phonation in the Second Passaggio

Pitch Range
The exercises investigated in this study require the production of whistle register
in the pitch range of the second passaggio. Vocal pedagogues attest that whistle register
phonation can be produced purposefully using vowel modification in a pitch range that
begins around the second passaggio of the female voice (Austin, 2008; Caldwell & Wall,
2000; Coffin, 1980). Research reported by Garnier et al. (2012) supports that whistle
register can be produced in this pitch range. The pitch range suitable for the use of vocal
exercises that use purposeful whistle register phonation is therefore determined by the
singer’s voice type because the second passaggio lies in a slightly different pitch range
for contraltos, mezzo-sopranos, lyric sopranos and coloratura sopranos.
The Use of Whistle Register Phonation in Voice

Training
Within the pedagogical literature, there is a definitive lack of information about
whistle register phonation that demonstrates a necessity for further research and a better
understanding of how to singers may benefit from use of this register in the voice studio.
While most pedagogical manuals give the briefest mention to whistle register (often
labeled as an “auxiliary” register), only a small portion of pedagogues explore the use of
whistle register as a training tool. The supposition that only a small population of female
singers is able to produce the extremely high pitches classified as whistle register could
be a reason for this. That until recently there were relatively few publications by female
singers or female pedagogues (who would have experienced the sensation of whistle
register first-hand) may also contribute to the lack of discussion that is devoted to whistle
register within the pedagogical literature.
In traditional early vocal pedagogy, whistle register phonation was usually only
explored and developed by coloratura sopranos (Emil-Behnke, 1945; Garcia, 1841/1982).
Manuel Garcia only briefly addresses the highest range of the female singing voice in his
1841 treatise on singing. In his ‘Table of the Classification of Cultivated Voices’ (p. 21),
43
Garcia (1841/1982) lists the range of the upper extension of the female voice as C6-F6
(1046 Hz-1397 Hz). The term “upper extension” has since become a standard way of
describing this specific pitch range of the female voice and is often used in operatic and
classical vocal literature that requires sopranos to sing notes above C6 (1046 Hz).
Pitches in this range can be sung in either head register or in whistle register, depending
upon the repertoire, the singer and the occasion. Garcia (1841/1982) calls the singers
able to produce tones in this pitch range “soprani sopri-acuti” (extra high sopranos) and
describes their voices as “exceptional” and “very rare” (p. 15). It is reported that
Mathilde Marchesi, a student of Garcia who went on to become a renowned teacher of
female singers in the late nineteenth century, trained her pupils in the production of
whistle register, which she called “the tiny oo” (reported in Caldwell & Wall, 2001, p.
295).
In the voice studio, female singers are encouraged to vocalize in whistle register
phonation if it occurs spontaneously and effortlessly. In her 1945 singing manual, The
Technique of Singing, Emil-Behnke calls the highest tones of the female voice the “alt”
register and, noting the spontaneous nature with which these tones are produced, suggests
they are only needed by the coloratura soprano. Garcia (1841/1982) recommends that the
very high pitches of the upper extension should only be attempted if a singer is able to
produce them spontaneously, without strain. Present-day vocal pedagogues that address
the phenomenon of whistle register phonation in their writing also advocate for the
exploration of this register only if the singer is able to achieve the light sensation without
excess tension. Brown’s (1996) instructions for discovering whistle register in his
pedagogical manual illustrate the continued practice of a spontaneous approach when
working with the uppermost register of the female voice:
When it is first discovered, it seems to pop out of nowhere. It just

happens. It may not always be on the pitch you were thinking.
Most likely, you will have the distinct feeling that you had nothing
to do with creating the sound and that you had no control over it.
44
If the note does not pop out by itself, forget it. Never try to ‘make’
it. Never push. (pp. 58-59)
Whistle Register Phonation as a Training Tool

Vocal pedagogues who give instruction in whistle register phonation use this
register to facilitate an effortless sensation in the uppermost range of the female voice.
These exercises are designed to help singers achieve freedom when producing sound in
the upper range of their voice (Brown, 1996; R. Miller, 2000). Furthermore, pedagogues
claim that vocalization in whistle register will allow female singers to gain effortless
access to the highest pitches of their range (Brown, 1996; R. Miller, 2000). Whistle
register exercises are also used to condition and strengthen the upper extension of the
female voice that is used abundantly in the standard art song and operatic repertoire for
soprano (R. Miller, 2000).

In addition to gaining access to the highest pitches in a singer’s range, vocal
exercises that require the production of purposeful whistle register phonation are meant to
smooth the transition through the second passaggio and condition the head register
(Austin, 2008; Caldwell & Wall, 2001; Coffin, 1980). These types of exercises are used
for register building and coordination with the aim of unifying the head and whistle
registers. Such register building is based on Garcia’s notion that a register’s vocal quality
is a direct result of the behavior of the intrinsic laryngeal muscles, and is commonly used
to smooth the first passaggio of the female singing voice (Austin, 2004). The practice of
register building can be applied to the second passaggio range with the use of a deliberate
transition from head register to whistle. In some exercises, it is recommended that

whistle register phonation be brought down through the lowest pitches of the overlap
range between head register and whistle. Austin (2004) reported the rationale for register
building: “since each register is the result of a particular muscular adjustment, it should
be possible to effect a change in the strength of a register and to coordinate the muscular
activity into a unified scale by directed exercise” (p. 199).

45
Coffin (1980), Austin (2008), Wall and Caldwell (2001) advocate for the use of
vocal exercises that require the singer to make deliberate transitions between head
register phonation and whistle register phonation (PWRP exercises). This transition can
be comfortably accomplished by vowel modification, usually to a vowel with a high
degree of buccal closure, such as /u/. The singer begins the PWRP exercises in the range
of her second passaggio and, continuing the exercise in an ascending pattern, extends the
whistle register phonation through the topmost pitches of her range. PWRP exercises can
be performed using a variety of ascending and descending patterns and often contain
some combination of head register phonation and purposeful whistle register phonation.
Review of Whistle Register Phonation Exercises from

the Vocal Pedagogy Literature
Currently there are five pedagogical publications that provide instruction for the
use of whistle register phonation as a training tool. R. Miller provides many examples of
vocal exercises specifically designed for developing the whistle register (what he calls
“flageolet” register) in his book Training Soprano Voices (2000). Brown also gives two
examples for the development of whistle register (what he alternately labels “Register 4”
and “flute voice”) in his pedagogical manual Discover Your Voice: How to Develop
Healthy Voice Habits (1996).

In Volume Three: Advancing the Technique of their series Excellence in Singing:
multilevel learning and multilevel teaching (2001), Caldwell and Wall include an
extensive collection of recommended exercises that use whistle register phonation.
Coffin’s pedagogy book Coffin’s Overtones of Bel Canto: Phonetic Basis of Artistic
Singing with 100 Chromatic Vowel Chart Exercises (1980) includes five exercises for all
female voice types that require the singer to produce whistle register phonation. In
“Building Strong Voices: Twelve Different Ways! (Part 2)”, an article that appeared in
The Choral Journal (2008), Austin outlines a vocal exercise for female singers that calls
for whistle register phonation in the range of the second passaggio.

46
What follows is a review of the pedagogical literature that gives instruction for
the use of whistle register phonation exercises as a tool for training female singers.
Oren Brown
Oren Brown (1996) advocates for the development of the whistle register in all
voices, concluding that “the better we can sensitize and exercise all the fine muscle fibers
that lie within the vocal folds, the better control we have for high notes, soft notes, full
notes, flexibility, and all the gradations in between” (p. 60). Brown refers to whistle
register phonation as “Register 4” and recommends practicing a light staccato arpeggio

where the top note should be the lightest. Brown advises singers to play around with
these light, high tones for only a few minutes at a time and warns not to “expect any real
application of these high notes for several months or even years” (p. 59). Brown stresses
the importance of a relaxed jaw, cheeks, tongue and corners of the mouth to facilitate
open space inside of the mouth for the production of whistle register phonation.
Berton Coffin
Coffin’s Overtones of Bel Canto (1980) is a technical singing manual that aspires
to apply new scientific knowledge about vocal function to Coffin’s understanding of a
vocal art that had been in existence for centuries. The author’s work is painstakingly
detailed with regard to diction and his theories about resonance tuning. He supports his
theories with diagrams and charts throughout the text.
The basis for Coffin’s technical method is formant tuning. Coffin defines a
register as a “variable position” (p. 23) which can be strengthened and equalized by
exploring the relationships between pitch frequency, vowels and overtones. He finds that
the vocal tract has 15 useable degrees of openness that allow adjustment of the resonance
of a sung pitch, with the result of a clearer tone and more spin in the vibrato. He matches
these 15 degrees of openness with vowels that are most likely to resonate the fundamental
47
frequency and harmonics, thus creating an optimal shape of the vocal tract to “boost”, or
reinforce, the overtones of the fundamental frequency.
Coffin’s pedagogy is based upon the linear source-filter theory of vowels, which
was the accepted theory for pitch-vowel interaction at the time of his publication.
Advances in voice research show that a non-linear source-filter theory of vowels where
the formants avoid, rather than reinforce, the harmonics better represents the constantly
changing shape of the human vocal tract (Titze, 2007). While the implementation of this
new development requires drastic changes to some aspects of Coffin’s research7, the
basic principles of his whistle register exercises remain a useful and interesting
pedagogical device, and are worthy of discussion here.
Coffin calls whistle register the “female falsetto” (Coffin, 1980) and encourages
the use of whistle register phonation for developing the head voice in female singers.
Coffin describes whistle register as an “overdrive” (p. 34) that allows the singer to have
an extension of range analogous to a car, where the overdrive gives an extension of speed
without burning out the car’s motor. He writes that the most important reason for
training the whistle and “Super Whistle”8 registers in the female voice is the necessity of
establishing a mechanism to hold up the other end of the bridge [head voice] at the
second passaggio (p. 34).

There are five vocal exercises that use whistle register phonation in Coffin’s
manual. The author explains the sound produced and sensations felt during whistle
register phonation in the detailed instructions that accompany his vocalises. The first
7Ingo Titze is currently adjusting Coffin’s “favorable vowel chart” to adhere to the non-linear
source-filter theory of vowels. His first two reports on this ongoing project can be found in the
Journal of Singing. (Titze, 2007 & 2009).
8Coffin (1980) writes about a “Super Whistle” register (also called “Puppy Whine”) that begins
in the pitch range above Whistle register, described as a high-pitched phonation that feels as
though the sound is coming from between the eyes. He emphasizes that this register should be
exercised daily by coloratura and high lyric sopranos.
48
exercise, “Whistle Register – The Preparation for Head Voice. Whistle while
pronouncing vowels behind the hand” (p. 35), is a quick descending arpeggio (8-5-3-1)
where the first tone of the arpeggio is produced using whistle register. In this exercise,
the singer should place the palm or back of their hand over the mouth. The whistle tone
should begin with a small puff of air through the nose, and vowel is sung with a small
opening of the mouth. According to Coffin, producing the whistle register phonation
behind the hand allows a double stream of vibrating air to pass through both the nose and
the mouth. When the hand is removed for head voice phonation, the soft palate rises.
Coffin recommends this exercise for training nasality and tongue position for head voice.
The next exercise presented is called “Yodels at the Fourth with Whistle Register”
(p. 42), another vocal exercise that uses whistle register phonation to condition the head
voice. Figure 1.2 shows that the singer is instructed to yodel downward from whistle
register to head register (then back up to whistle register and down again to head register)
on the same vowels and with the same mouth opening. The singer is encouraged to
aspirate a small /h/ at the onset of phonation in whistle register. The vowels Coffin has
chosen are thought to be favorable vowels for producing the pitches he assigns them to.
A drastic change is observed in the tone quality and the proprioceptive sensations felt
during the production of both phonations. This exercise begins near the top of the second
passaggio of the female voice, on the back vowel /u/ with a very small mouth opening of
[1]. As the singer ascends through her range, the vowels move forward and the mouth
opening is increased by small degrees. The most forward vowel with the most open
mouth position /e7/ occurs at the highest sung pitch. Coffin’s manual also includes a
variation on this exercise, where the singer performs the yodels using different vowels
with the same mouth opening.

49
Figure 1.2 Yodels at the Fourth with Whistle Register. The capital letters above the
staff indicate the vocal register (W=whistle, H=head, V= vowel9). The
numbers on the left side indicate the starting pitch (corresponding to the
moveable piano map on the Chromatic Vowel Chart). The phonetic
symbols underneath the staff indicate the vowel, and the number in
superscript indicates the desired mouth opening. (Coffin, 1980, p. 42)
Coffin also uses a combination of whistle register and head register in the exercise
“Floating High Notes” (p. 79).
This exercise (Figure 1.3) is sung mostly in head voice, with only the highest
pitch produced in whistle register. The notes produced in whistle register are forward
vowels with small mouth openings, sung at softer dynamic levels than the rest of the
exercise. The singer is encouraged to aspirate a small /h/ at the onset of phonation in
whistle register.
9Coffin (1980) names Vowel Register: “because it is the lower resonance, R1, of the vowels” (p.
16). Coffin’s places the track for Vowel register between Mixed voice and Head register on his
Chromatic Vowel Chart.
50
Figure 1.3 Floating High Notes. The capital letters above the staff indicate the vocal
register (W=whistle, V= vowel). The numbers on the left side indicate the
starting pitch (corresponding to the moveable piano map on the Chromatic
Vowel Chart). The phonetic symbols underneath the staff indicate the
vowel, and the number in superscript indicates the desired mouth opening.
(Coffin, 1980, p. 79)
Table 1.3 Suggested Pitch Range for the Use of Whistle Register Phonation
Described in Coffin’s Chromatic Vowel Chart
Front Neutral Back Umlaut F N B U F N B

Vowels
Voice
/o/
/i/ /ə/ /u/ /y/ /e/ /ʊ/ /ɣ/ /œ/ /ae/ /Ʌ/ /u/
Type /I/ /ʊ/ /ɯ/ /Y/ /ɛ/ /ʌ/ /ɔ/ /ø/ /a/
Contralto E5-G5 Ab5-D6 Eb6

Suggested Pith Range for
Mezzo-
Soprano F5-Ab5 A5-Eb6 E6
Lyric
Spinto F#5-A5 Bb5-E6 F6
Lyric
Soprano G5-Bb5 B5-F6 F#6
Coloratura
Soprano Ab5-B5 C6-F#6 G6
51
Coffin encourages all female vocalists to use whistle register phonation in a pitch
range appropriate to their voice type. The recommended pitch ranges for use of whistle
register phonation can be found in Coffin’s Chromatic Vowel Chart for Voice Building
and Tone Placing (Coffin, 1980), and are shown in Table 1.3.
Robert Caldwell and Joan Wall

Caldwell and Wall discuss the differing pedagogical philosophies regarding vocal
register, as well as the many approaches to teaching voice register in the third volume of
the Excellence in Singing series, entitled “Advancing the Technique”. The manual
includes many exercises that use whistle register phonation and suggestions for
appropriate application of these exercises during a voice lesson. Caldwell and Wall
describe whistle register as a “brilliant and penetrating” (p. 60) register that, in addition to
being used to produce the uppermost pitches of the female singing voice, overlaps in
pitch range with the head voice. The authors go on to state: “requiring good breath
support and a generous flow of air, the whistle voice feels as if it vibrates through the
hard palate and under the nose – all without tension or effort in the throat” (p. 295). The
authors recommend that all female singers use whistle register to develop and strengthen
their head voice.

Caldwell and Wall’s manual includes an extensive review of Coffin’s pedagogical
method (which the authors title the “Ten Register View of the Voice”). The authors note
two purposes for the use of Coffin’s Whistle Track: (1) to develop the track directly
below [head register] and (2) to train the female singer’s extended range. These concepts
are expanded upon the section “To Sing into Track .5 (Whistle Track)”, which includes
two applications for training whistle register phonation. The first suggestion is to have
the singer sing high-pitched slides on /u/ in whistle register. The second suggestion is to
sing with favorable vowels (closed and round), and includes a musical example where the
first 5 tones are sung in chest register with a swoop up to the high note (2-octave leap)
52
sung in whistle register followed by a 2-octave descending scale (the singer is instructed
to sing lightly to smooth the transition back to chest) (p. 427).
Additionally, “To Sing into Track .33 (Super Whistle Track)” describes Coffin’s
highest track designation, which “sounds like a little squeak” (p. 428) and can be
achieved by singing a closed /i/ vowel with no tension in the throat. The authors suggest
that this track is used to develop extended range, and offer two applications for use in the
voice studio. The first exercise for developing Super Whistle Track suggests the student
sing a slide on a closed and round vowel as high as possible. The second suggestion is to
sing with favorable vowels (closed and round) to discover the extreme uppermost range,
and is followed by a musical example with the instructions: “be sure that your student
uses generous breath support and actually narrows her mouth for the indicated vowels”
(p. 428). Another suggestion for achieving ease in the uppermost pitch range uses open-
mouth hums – the student should slightly open her mouth and cover lips with the palm of
her hand (air escapes through the nose but not the mouth).
In addition to the in-depth description of Coffin’s method, Caldwell and Wall
offer further suggestions for developing whistle register to help students achieve easier
access to their head voice. In order to establish a sensation of lightness in the range of
the second passaggio, they instruct the student to approach the pitches from above and
descend using whistle register. One exercise instructs the student to sing ascending slides
with a “tiny oo” vowel, using a fast swooping sound with strong breath energy. The
student is advised to purse her lips almost as if to whistle with a tiny lip opening and
dropped jaw. The authors also suggest that singing long descending scales on /u/,
beginning in whistle register and transitioning through head and chest as the pitches
descend will help extend the upper range and build a smooth descending scale through all
registers. After the student has shown competence singing in whistle register, a two-
octave arpeggio on /a/ (using all registers, with whistle phonation on the uppermost pitch)
can be attempted. The authors suggest slight rounding of the /a/ on the upper pitch to
53
encourage whistle register phonation (a “tall, high, forward” sensation). The suggested
pitch range for the use of whistle register phonation in these exercises is A5-Eb5.
Richard Miller
R. Miller, a well-known vocal pedagogue who wrote several texts on voice
production and singing, makes consistent use of the term “flageolet” when describing the
uppermost register of the female voice. According to R. Miller (2000), whistle register is
an extension of the head voice and occurs when the phonation events required in
producing head voice become very acute, and there is a change in timbre and sensation.
He states that there are advantages in the development of the whistle register for
strengthening the upper [head] register that lies directly below it. Among these benefits
are achieving ease in the production of exposed pitches of the high-lying literature
written for soprano and an overall feeling of freedom in the upper voice. R. Miller
(2000) states:
Some successful professional female singers who have difficulty in

producing flageolet would find more freedom in upper voice if
they were able to let go of habitual static controls that inhibit full
elongation…of the vocal folds…Although elongation…of the
membranous folds [reaches its] greatest fulfillment in flageolet
register, to a lesser degree [it is] operative in all the highest pitches
of a soprano voice. To some extent, then, flageolet is simply a
continuance of the approach for all high-lying pitches in the female
voice. A number of pitches possible in the flageolet range lodge
above those required for public performance. The advantage of
developing flageolet capability lies in the ease it brings to the
exposed pitches of high-lying literature. Having drilled the
flageolet register to Eb6 or above, high C [C6] is no longer the top
performable note for Mimi. She has assurance that she can
produce a number of semitones beyond high C. (p. 138)
R. Miller (2000) advises that the sensation of singing in whistle register should
feel “child-like”, “tossed-off” and effortless (p. 137). He suggests that the best way for a
student to approach this register is in an almost child-like manner, executing rapid
patterns imitative of hilarious laughter or the imitation of a rapid siren sound (low to
high), aiming at no specific pitch. His vocalises encourage an effortless feeling of

54
release, and are based on fast-moving arpeggios, scale passages and short agility
exercises. He also advocates excerpting passages from the high soprano vocal literature
to be used as vocal exercises.
In his review of the English, French, German and Italian schools of singing, R.
Miller (1997) also notes the historical importance of using whistle register to train
soprano voices in the Italian and French schools of pedagogy:
…a range of notes referred to as the bell register, lying above high

d3 [D6, or 1174 Hz] (approximately) for the soprano. In
producing notes within the compass of this range, the French and
the Italian schools often find a key to the brilliant development of
the upper voice. The shape of the mouth is drastically altered by
extensive buccal closure, exaggerated smile and elevated
maxillaries.…This sound then is brought down into the
neighboring tones of the upper register. (p. 133)
According to R. Miller (2000), “regardless of voice category, every voice is
bound by an ultimate pitch at either end of its negotiable scale; each singer has an upper-
range limitation dependent on the extent to which vocal-fold elongation can
occur…Flageolet register guarantees the fullest elongation and thinning of the folds in a
range of the voice that often remains neglected” (p. 136). R. Miller (1997) states that
though mezzo-sopranos and contraltos are able to produce “bell register”, or whistle
register; it is “seldom developed in a useful way” (p. 133). Perhaps R. Miller made this
statement because much of the mezzo-soprano repertoire does not require vocalization in
the extended range that is prevalent in the soprano literature; however he and other
pedagogues do state that the benefits of training whistle register are not limited to the
uppermost pitch range of the female voice, and that singing in whistle register can be
favorable for the development of the head register and pitches around the second
passaggio (Austin, 2008; Caldwell & Wall, 2001; Coffin, 1980).
Stephen Austin
In his article “Building Strong Voices”, Stephen Austin (2008) writes that every
female is capable of singing in whistle register (what he calls “flute” register). According
55
to Austin, the key to achieving whistle register phonation is singing high and light using
the /u/ vowel with a particularly small mouth opening and very rounded lips. He calls
vocalises that incorporate whistle register phonation a “great stretching exercise” (p. 62),
in which the passive state of the thyroarytenoid (TA) muscle allows the cricothyroid (CT)
muscle to elongate the vocal folds without resistance. He describes one exercise that he
uses in his teaching studio: “I have them sing an ascending interval of C5-G5 going from
/a/ to /u/ with a portamento, and then a descending five-note scale. If they can keep their
lips from opening too wide, the voice will go into flute [whistle] register: mission
accomplished” (p. 62). The use of the /u/ vowel is essential for the production of whistle
register in this pitch range – Austin states that whistle register “depends upon a unique
acoustic coupling in the vocal tract (that is why I use /u/ along with a passive TA)” (p.
62). Austin recommends this exercise as a way to exercise the cricothyroid muscle
“while at the same time teaching the TA to relax” (p. 62).
Eliciting Whistle Register in Female Singers

In order to achieve whistle register phonation in a pitch range lower than that in
which whistle register spontaneously occurs, it is recommended that the vocalist create a
vowel modification by keeping the lip opening very small, providing a partial occlusion
(closure) of the vocal tract (Austin, 2008; Coffin, 1980). Many pedagogues advocate for
the use of the /u/ vowel to help the student find and feel the transition to whistle register
phonation in the range of the second passaggio (Austin, 2008; Caldwell & Wall, 2001;
Coffin 1980). In his brief discussion of whistle register in Your Voice: An Inside View
(2004), McCoy states that “some singers find this transition [from head register to whistle
register] more successful when using a modification towards /u/, with a small degree of
jaw closure and lip rounding” (p. 74). Brown suggests the singer explore whistle register
with “a humming sound or the smallest kind of lip opening in a position for ‘oo’ [u]
…with absolutely no tensing of the lips, jaw or throat, and with a gentle flow of air”
56
(Brown, 1996, p. 58). Caldwell and Wall (2001) report Marchesi’s instructions for
finding the “tiny oo” with the closed and rounded lip position of the /u/ vowel. Austin
(2008) describes the desired lip opening as “no bigger than a pencil lead” (p. 62). All of
the vocal exercises outlined for eliciting whistle register phonation in Coffin’s Overtones
of Bel Canto (1980) begin with a very small – “pencil-sized” (p. 35) – and rounded lip
opening.
Table 1.4 Instructions for Whistle Register Phonation in Voice Training Found in
the Pedagogical Literature
Instructions
Range for for eliciting
whistle whistle
register Benefits of whistle Types of whistle register
phonation register exercises register exercises phonation
AUTHOR
Austin 2nd passaggio Decrease vocal fold Deliberate /u/ with small
and higher* resistance, release transition from lip opening
of TA muscle head register
Brown None given Flexibility, better Light staccato Don’t force it,
control of high one-octave let it happen
notes, soft notes, arpeggios, high
full notes descending octave
portamento
Caldwell A5 and Extend range, Slides, sirens, /u/ very small

and Wall above* condition head descending scales, lips
register, smooth 2nd 2-octave arpeggios
passaggio transition
Coffin E5 and above, Condition head Yodels, arpeggios; Very small,

dependent on register, smooth 2nd deliberate register rounded lip
voice type passaggio transition transition opening
R. Miller Not limited to Strengthen head Quick arpeggios, Imitate

the uppermost register, extend scales, agility hilarious
pitch range range, increased exercises, experts laughter, siren
freedom from high soprano sound
vocal literature
* implied by the given pitch range for described vocal exercises
57
Summary
A review of the pedagogical literature shows that the use of whistle register
phonation for voice training is usually recommended for extending the upper range of the
female singing voice. Five pedagogues (Austin, 2008; Brown, 1996; Caldwell & Wall,
2001; Coffin, 1980; R. Miller, 2000) give specific instructions (summarized in Table 1.4)
for the use of whistle register exercises when working with female vocalists to extend
range, condition the head register, and smooth the 2nd passaggio transition.
The aforementioned authors base their classification of whistle register on both
the vocal timbre perceived by the listener (teacher) and the physical sensations
experienced by the singer (student). These pedagogues encourage whistle register
phonation in the upper range of the female voice, even on pitches that lie low enough in a
singer’s range to be sung in head register. In this practice the intention is not necessarily
to sing the lower pitches using whistle register phonation in a performance setting but to
use whistle register in conditioning exercises that a singer would include in their daily
vocal warm-up routine. This suggests that whistle register phonation is not only a
significant means for producing the highest pitches in a soprano voice but that it is also a
valuable tool for the strengthening and development of head register phonation around
the range of the second passaggio for all female singers.
Problem Review
A small portion of the pedagogical literature supports the use of whistle register
phonation exercises as a training tool in the range of the second passaggio and through
the uppermost pitches for all female singers. In order to understand the value of the use
of whistle register phonation exercises in voice training, a study evaluating the efficacy of
these exercises and investigating their influence on vocal quality and intonation in the
range of the second passaggio must be conducted. The results of such a study may
provide singing teachers and performers with new knowledge and tools for conditioning
the problematic second passaggio range of the female singing voice.

58
In order for voice teachers to begin to use whistle register phonation exercises
effectively in the teaching studio, a report of the possible range for purposeful whistle
register phonation in trained singers is needed. Scientific research studies have gathered
data from subjects who could produce whistle register phonation at pitches around and
above C5 (523 Hz) (Garnier et al., 2012; Henrich et al., 2005; D. Miller & Schutte, 1993;
Svec et al., 2008; Walker 1986 & 1988). Walker (1986 & 1988) and Garnier et al. (2012)
reported a range of pitches that can be produced in both whistle register and head register
by trained singers. Other studies investigated VKG and EGG signal during the transition
point from head register to whistle register phonation during pitch glides (Garnier et al.,
2012; Henrich et al., 2005; Svec et al., 2008). No studies have documented the
percentage of range over which whistle register phonation is possible in trained or

untrained singers. By examining the pitch range in which whistle register can be
produced by mezzo-sopranos and sopranos, this study aims to make voice teachers and
singers aware of appropriate use of whistle register phonation for voice training of all
female voice types.
A moderate amount of scientific research exists regarding the physiological and
acoustic properties of whistle register phonation. The results of these studies show that
during phonation in whistle register 1) open quotient values are higher than during
phonation in head register and chest register (Garnier et al., 2012; Henrich et al, 2005; D.
Miller & Schutte, 1993; Svec et al., 2008), 2) the vibrational amplitude of the vocal folds
is less than during phonation in head register (Garnier et al., 2012; Henrich et al., 2003;
D. Miller & Schutte, 1993; Svec et al., 2008), and 3) airflow rates are less than during
phonation in head register (Walker, 1986 & 1988).
Many of the problems encountered by female singers in the second passaggio
transition are a result of poor coordination between vocal fold adduction and airflow.
This study proposes that vocal exercises employing purposeful whistle register phonation
could be used to improve vocal coordination by targeting the following physiological

59
conditions: 1) excess medial tension in the vocal folds that manifests as a high closed
quotient value and results in “pressed” voice, 2) forceful adduction of the vocal folds
characteristic of “pressed” phonation, 3) uncoordinated airflow present in both “breathy”
and “pressed” phonation. Though the literature supports that instrumented measurement
of these factors to distinguish “pressed” and “breathy” from “normal” voice quality is
possible (Grillo & Verdolini, 2006; Sundberg, 2003; Verdolini, Chan, Titze, Hess, &
Beirhals, 1998), such procedures are beyond the scope of the current study. In order to
most closely replicate the voice studio environment, improvement in these conditions will
be measured through the perceptual evaluation of voice quality.
Support for the use of whistle register phonation exercises in the teaching studio
can be found in the vocal pedagogy literature, but no research has been conducted to
determine the efficacy of these exercises. By testing the efficacy of whistle register
phonation exercises; this study aims to determine the influence of whistle register
phonation on range extension, intonation and/or vocal quality in the second passaggio of
the female singing voice. By making voice teachers and singers aware of the possible
benefits of whistle register as a teaching tool, teachers may be more likely to use whistle
register exercises in their studio for training of all female voice types.
The purpose of this study is to measure the efficacy of PWRP vocal exercises as
treatment for poor intonation and/or pressed or breathy vocal quality in a population of
female singers presenting with vocal challenges in the second passaggio. The influence
of whistle register phonation on extending the vocal range of female singers will also be
investigated.
60
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
Hypothesis
This pedagogical study tested two hypotheses:
1) The incorporation of whistle register phonation into daily vocal exercises can be
used as treatment for poor intonation and/or pressed or breathy vocal quality in
female singers presenting with vocal challenges in the range of their second
passaggio.
2) Daily vocalization in whistle register can extend a singer’s vocal range.
Theoretical Framework
Single Subject Experimental Design

A variation of the treatment-no treatment evaluation strategy (ABAB) served as
the research design. This strategy is used to evaluate the efficacy of a specific treatment
by comparison to a no-treatment baseline condition (Kearns, 1986; Kratochwill et al.,
2010). According to Kratochwill et al. (2010, p. 2), the features of a single-subject
experimental design are: (1) a single subject is the unit of intervention and the unit of data
analysis, (2) the subject provides its own control for the purposes of comparison, and (3)
the outcome variable is measured repeatedly within and across different conditions and
levels of the independent variable. In this study, intonation, vocal quality, and vocal
range were the dependent variables. For each subject, vocalises designed to measure
these variables were recorded during four different phases of the study: a baseline phase,
a treatment (or intervention) phase, a no-treatment (or withdrawal) phase, and a final
treatment (intervention) phase. The manipulation of an independent variable (in this
study, daily performance of PWRP exercises) was introduced during the first treatment
phase, withdrawn during the no-treatment phase, then re-introduced during the final
treatment phase of the experiment.

61
Subjects
Five female subjects, ages 22 - 60 (two sopranos and three mezzo-sopranos) with
no present respiratory, laryngeal or neurological disorders participated in this study. All
subjects were classically trained singers who either had studied or were currently
studying vocal music at the college level. Subjects 1 and 4 were mezzo-sopranos in their
fourth year of vocal training. Subject 2, a coloratura soprano, was a graduate student in
her eighth year of vocal training. Subject 3, a soprano, was a voice teacher in her ninth
year of vocal training. Subject 5 was a voice teacher and performer with over 30 years of
experience singing both soprano and alto parts in local choral ensembles. Subjects 2 and
3 frequently used whistle register phonation when singing pitches in their upper
extensions (noted by both to be “above high C” [C6, 1047 Hz]), but had not used whistle
register phonation for vocal exercises in the range of the second passaggio. Subjects 1
and 5 had some familiarity with whistle register phonation, but did not use it frequently;
and Subject 4 had never sung in whistle register before.
Table 2.1 Subject Intake Information
Subject Age Years of training - type Voice Type
1 22 4 – college applied voice Mezzo-soprano
2 24 8 – college applied voice Coloratura Soprano
3 26 9 – college and private lessons Soprano
4 22 4 – college applied voice Mezzo-soprano
5 60 Over 30 – choral singing Mezzo-soprano
The subjects were recruited by the principal investigator (PI) by email or personal
invitation, and came from the vocal area in the School of Music at the University of Iowa.
The subjects were admitted to the study because they or their voice teacher felt they had
62
one or more of the following vocal issues while singing in their second passaggio: poor
intonation, pressed phonation or breathy phonation.
A total of five subjects were admitted to this study. Immediately following their
admission to the study, the subjects were asked to complete a Subject Intake Form10.
Table 2.1 shows preliminary information as disclosed by the subjects on their intake
form.
For the purposes of this study, whistle register was defined by both its timbre
(distinguished by the PI) and sensation of production (determined by the subjects),
unhindered by range of pitch. A preliminary interview was conducted to determine if the
subjects were able to produce whistle register in the range of their second passaggio.
After a demonstration of whistle register phonation and specific instructions from the PI,
all subjects showed they could produce or be coached to produce whistle register in the
range of their second passaggio. During the demonstration, the PI performed a vocal
exercise twice (Whistle Register Task 111) – the first time in head register, and the
second time making a deliberate transition from head register to whistle register for the
highest pitch of the exercise. When asked by the PI if they could hear the difference
between the first and second tasks, all subjects answered in the affirmative, indicating
that they were able to perceptually discriminate between phonation in head register and
phonation in whistle register. The subjects were then asked to perform the same vocal
exercise (Whistle Register Task 1) - the first time in head register, and the second time
making a deliberate transition from head register to whistle register for the highest pitch
of the exercise. After some coaching, all subjects were able to achieve the deliberate
transition from head register to whistle register. When asked by the PI if they could feel
10Subject Intake Form can be found in Appendix C.
11Whistle Register Task 1 is described in Appendix A

63
the difference between the first and second tasks, all subjects answered in the affirmative,
indicating that they were able to recognize the difference in sensation between phonation
in head register and phonation in whistle register.
Study Design
The study took place in four phases, with weekly meetings between subjects and
the Principal Investigator (PI) occurring over the course of 16 weeks.
Table 2.2 Experimental Phases and Timeline
Phase of Study Timeline
Baseline Phase Week 1
Treatment Phase 1 Weeks 2-7
No-Treatment Phase Weeks 8-10
Treatment Phase 2 Weeks 11-16
During the treatment phases, participants received weekly instruction in vocal
exercises using whistle register phonation and practiced these activities daily. During the
baseline and no-treatment phases, the subjects were instructed not to practice whistle
register phonation. Audio samples of two vocalises (A and B) and a repertoire excerpt
were collected weekly. An octave arpeggio exercise was performed weekly to record the
highest possible sung pitch for each subject. Measurements taken during the treatment
phases were compared to measurements taken during the baseline and no-treatment
phases.
This research measures the effect of daily whistle register phonation in a target
pitch range on the following: 1) quality of intonation and 2) vocal quality {including the
64
presence and severity of breathiness and strain} during register transition through the
subject’s second passaggio.
Instrumentation
Audio of the subjects’ performance of the vocalises and repertoire excerpts was recorded
using a TASCAM DR-07 portable audio recorder producing a 24-bit wav file at a 44.1k
sample rate. The audio files were distributed to volunteer auditors electronically in a
Microsoft Power Point Presentation. A piano was used for the weekly sessions, which
took place in a sound-proof room. The piano and sound level meter (Quest Technologies,
Model 2700 set to fast response, C weighting, 60-120 dB range and calibrated to 114 dB)
were used to record data for the creation of each subject’s Voice Range Profile.
Description of Vocal Tasks
Vocalises A and B
Figure 2.1 Vocalise A
Figure 2.2 Vocalise B

65
Vocalises A and B were performed in head register and are designed to measure
Intonation, Vocal Quality, severity of Breathiness and severity of Strain during register
transition through the subject’s second passaggio.
Range Extension Measurement Task

In addition to the VRP, it was determined useful to measure range extension
during an additional singing task more similar to what a vocalist performs in daily
practice. The subjects performed a one-octave arpeggio exercise (1-3-5-8-5-3-1) on /a/ at
the end of each weekly session (Range Extension Measurement Task12). The subjects
could choose to perform the task either staccato or legato (whichever was most
comfortable) and the articulation was kept consistent throughout the entire study. The
task started in the middle pitch range (the lowest pitch ~A4) and was repeated on
ascending half-steps through the very top of the subject’s pitch range. The PI recorded
the highest pitch the subject was capable of singing each week.
Whistle Register Tasks 1 and 2: PWRP Exercises

Whistle Register Tasks 1 and 2 are exercises that utilize a combination of head
register and purposeful whistle register phonation. They were performed on consecutive
ascending pitches in the range of the subject’s second passaggio. Specific pitches were
dependent upon voice classification.
The target pitch range of each vocal task is based on the position of the register
transition, or passaggio, in the upper range of each subject’s voice. Table 2.3, based on
information from R. Miller (2000, p. 25), Titze (2000, p. 293) and Coffin (1980,
Chromatic Vowel Chart), indicates the target pitch range for Whistle Register Tasks 1
and 2.
12 Notation for the Range Extension Measurement Task is provided in Appendix A

66
Figure 2.3 Whistle Register Task 1
Whistle Register Task 1 is adapted from Austin (2008) and begins with head
voice phonation on the vowel /a/, ascends a perfect fifth to an /u/ vowel sung in whistle
register phonation and, continuing in whistle register, descends through the 4th, 3rd and
2nd scale degrees back to the starting pitch (tonic).
In order to determine an appropriate range for the use of whistle register
exercises, the lowest and highest possible pitches produced in whistle register phonation
(using the deliberate transition) in Whistle Register Task 1 were recorded each week.
Figure 2.4 Whistle Register Task 2
Whistle Register Task 2 is adapted from Coffin (1980) and sung on the vowel /u/.
Whistle Register Task 2 begins on the tonic, with a descending interval of a perfect fourth
(to the fifth scale degree) that ascends back to the octave and ends with a descending
67
arpeggio (8-5-3-1). The exercise begins in whistle register, and incorporates two
“yodels” between head and whistle register.
Table 2.3 Target Pitch Range of Whistle Register Tasks
Voice Type Target Pitch Range of Whistle Register Tasks
Contralto E5 – G5 (659 Hz – 784 Hz)
Mezzo-Soprano F5 – Ab5 (698 Hz – 831 Hz)
Lyric Soprano F#5 – A5 (740 Hz – 880 Hz)
Coloratura Soprano G5 – Bb5 (784 Hz – 932 Hz)
Procedure
Baseline Phase
Introductory Interview. One 50 minute session.
During the Introductory Interview, each subject met individually with the PI in a
soundproof studio with a piano. The PI informed the subjects of the procedures of the
research study and asked each participant to sign a consent form. Each participant was
then asked to complete a questionnaire about her vocal habits and vocal health history13.
To codify data collected during the 16-week research study; the subjects also completed
an additional Vocal Health Questionnaire measuring the state of their vocal health on that
day14.
After completing the paperwork, the PI introduced each subject to whistle register
phonation. The PI used a Pitch Glide Task to determine if the subject could produce
13Subject Intake form can be found in Appendix C.
14Vocal Health Questionnaire can be found in Appendix C.

68
whistle register phonation in the range of the second passaggio. The Pitch Glide Task
was performed on an ascending leap of a P5, beginning on the tonic in head register on
/a/, followed by a deliberate transition to whistle register on /u/ for the top note. The
highest pitch of the glide was the lowest target pitch of the second passaggio range, and
varied for each subject depending on voice type.
The PI used the following techniques to teach each subject to elicit whistle
register phonation in their target pitch range:

1) PI demonstration of the Pitch Glide Task.
2) Modify to /u/ vowel with very round, small lip opening (no larger than a pencil
lead).
3) Maintain space of /a/ vowel behind the rounded lips.

4) Airflow will be less during whistle register phonation, but maintain breath support
during the exercise.
5) Whistle register will feel lighter and sound “flutier” than head register.
After the subject successfully completed the Pitch Glide Task, she was admitted
to the study. A Voice Range Profile (VRP) was made for each subject, to serve as a
baseline measurement of their vocal range and intensity capability. To obtain a VRP, the
PI used a keyboard to produce the pitch and a sound level meter to record the vocal
intensity. Starting at the lowest comfortable frequency in the subject’s pitch range, the
subject produced the loudest and softest notes possible for the given pitch. This
procedure was repeated on ascending pitches throughout the subject’s entire frequency
range. The VRP obtained as a baseline measurement at the first meeting was compared
to additional VRPs obtained for the same subject at the end of each phase of the study
(Treatment Phase 1, No-Treatment Phase and Treatment Phase 2). According to Titze
(2000), “the VRP is a useful way to document changes in the vocal intensity and F0
ranges for voice training and treatment” (p. 265).

69
After data was gathered for the VRP, the subject was recorded singing two
vocalises (Vocalises A and B) and a repertoire excerpt to obtain baseline measurements
for Intonation, Vocal Quality, severity of Breathiness, and severity of Strain. Vocalise A
was performed once by each subject in her target pitch range. Five patterns of Vocalise B
were performed in an ascending pattern in the pitch range of the second passaggio. The
performance pitch ranges used in the study are shown in Table 2.4. The pitch range for
each vocal task was based on the position of the register transition, or passaggio, in the
upper range of each subject’s voice.
Table 2.4 Task Performance Pitch Ranges for Vocalises A and B
Subject Vocalise A Vocalise B (start) Vocalise B (end)
S1 Db Major E Major Ab Major
S2 D Major G Major B Major
S3 D Major G Major B Major
S4 C Major E Major Ab Major
S5 C Major E Major Ab Major
After performing Vocalises A and B, the subject also performed one short
repertoire excerpt, chosen for the challenges presented in the second passaggio tessitura
The repertoire excerpt was chosen by the subject with the following requirements: 1) the
tessitura of the repertoire excerpt was in the subject’s second passaggio range, 2) the
selected repertoire was already learned at “performance” level (i.e., pitches, rhythm, and
diction were learned and the subject had already performed the repertoire on a recital
70
and/or jury), and 3) the subject was not currently working on the selected repertoire
outside of the current study.
For each subject, one pattern of Vocalise A, five patterns of Vocalise B and the
Repertoire Excerpt were recorded weekly. These recordings provided baseline
measurements for Intonation, Vocal Quality, severity of Breathiness, and severity of
Strain.
At the end of the session, the subject performed an octave arpeggio exercise on
/a/, starting in the middle pitch-range of her voice and continuing to the highest possible
pitch she was able to produce. The PI noted the highest pitch produced. This provided a
baseline measurement for the highest sung pitch in the subject’s range.
Treatment Phase 1
Six 30-minute Sessions.
The PI met with each subject individually in a soundproof room with a piano. At
the start of each of the weekly sessions in Treatment Phase 1 (T1), the subject completed
a Vocal Health Questionnaire to describe the state of her vocal health.
After the paperwork was completed, the PI reviewed the techniques for eliciting
whistle register phonation that were introduced in the introductory interview. The subject
learned Whistle Register Tasks 1 and 2, incorporating whistle register phonation as
described in the introductory interview. This was achieved through demonstration and
coaching by the PI. The subject was also provided a copy of the musical notation for
reference. Table 2.5 shows each subject’s pitch range for Whistle Register Tasks 1 and 2
The subject performed Whistle Register Task 1 on ascending pitches through the
top of her pitch range. Then the subject was recorded singing one pattern of Vocalise A
in the target pitch range assigned to her voice type.

71
The subject performed Whistle Register Task 2 on ascending pitches in the
assigned pitch range. Then the subject was recorded singing five patterns each of
Vocalise B in the same pitch range.
The subject was recorded singing their selected Repertoire Excerpt.
Table 2.5 Pitch Ranges for Whistle Register Tasks
Subject WR Task #1 (start*) WR Task #2 (start) WR Task #2 (end)
S1 Bb Major E Major Ab Major
S2 C Major G Major B Major
S3 C Major G Major B Major

*Whistle Register Task 1 was performed on ascending pitches through the top of the subject’s
range.
The subject performed an octave arpeggio exercise on /a/, starting in the middle
pitch-range of her voice and continuing to the highest possible pitch she was able to
produce. The PI noted the highest pitch produced.
At the end of each session during T1, the subject was given a worksheet15 with
instructions for distributed practice of Whistle Register Tasks 1 and 2 and performance of
Vocalises A and B every day within her specified pitch range, plus the repertoire excerpt.
The worksheet included a daily practice chart for each vocal task. The subject was
instructed to perform the vocal tasks daily, mark her practice on the chart, and return the
worksheet to the PI the following week.
15“Weekly Vocal Tasks – Treatment Phase” can be found in Appendix D.

72
At the end of the final T1 session, data was collected to create a VRP for each
subject.
No-Treatment Phase
Three 20-minute sessions.
During the No-Treatment Phase (NT) of the study, the instruction and
performance of vocal tasks using whistle register phonation was withdrawn. The subject
was instructed not to vocalize in whistle register during this stage of the study. The PI
continued to meet with each subject weekly during NT, in a soundproof studio with a
piano. At the start of each session, the subject completed a Vocal Health Questionnaire
to describe the state of her vocal health.
During the NT sessions, each subject was recorded singing one pattern of
Vocalise A, five patterns of Vocalise B, and their Repertoire Excerpt. The custom pitch
range used to obtain the subject’s baseline measurements was adhered to.
Then the subject performed an octave arpeggio exercise on /a/, starting in the
middle pitch-range of their voice and continuing to the highest possible pitch she was
able to produce. The PI noted the highest pitch produced.
At the end of each NT session, the subject was given a worksheet16 with
instructions to perform Vocalises A and B every day within their specified pitch range,
plus the repertoire excerpt. The worksheet included a daily practice chart for each vocal
task. The subject was instructed to perform the vocal tasks daily, mark her practice on
the chart, and return the worksheet to the PI the following week.
At the end of the final NT session, data was collected to create a VRP for each
subject. Following the VRP procedure, the PI reviewed Whistle Register Tasks 1 and 2.
The subject was given a worksheet with instructions for distributed practice of Whistle
16“Weekly Vocal Tasks – No-Treatment Phase” can be found in Appendix E.

73
Register Tasks 1 and 2 and performance of Vocalises A and B every day within her
specified pitch range, plus the repertoire excerpt. The worksheet included a daily
practice chart for each vocal task. The subject was instructed to perform the vocal tasks
daily, mark her practice on the chart, and return the worksheet to the PI the following
week.
Treatment Phase 2
Six 30-minute sessions.
The PI met with each subject individually in a soundproof room with a piano. At
the start of each of the weekly sessions in Treatment Phase 2 (T2), the subject completed
a Vocal Health Questionnaire to describe the state of her vocal health.
The subject performed Whistle Register Task 1 on ascending pitches through the
top of her pitch range. The PI noted the lowest and highest pitches the subject was able
to produce in whistle register phonation. Then the subject was recorded singing one
pattern of Vocalise A in the target pitch range assigned to her voice type.
The subject performed five patterns of Whistle Register Task 2 on ascending
pitches in the pitch range assigned to her voice type. Then the subject was recorded
singing five patterns of Vocalise B in the same pitch range. The custom pitch range used
to obtain the subject’s baseline measurements was adhered to.
The subject was recorded singing her selected Repertoire Excerpt.

The subject performed an octave arpeggio exercise on /a/, starting in the middle
pitch-range of their voice and continuing to the highest possible pitch she was able to
produce. The PI noted the highest pitch produced.
At the end of each T2 session, the subject was given a worksheet with instructions
for distributed practice of Whistle Register Tasks 1 and 2 and performance of Vocalises
A and B every day within her specified pitch range, plus the repertoire excerpt. The
worksheet included a daily practice chart for each vocal task. The subject was instructed
74
to perform the vocal tasks daily, mark her practice on the chart, and return the worksheet
to the PI the following week.
At the end of the final T2 session, data was collected to create a VRP for each
subject.
Measurement and Auditors

Collected data was measured in four ways:
1) Voice Range Profile: At the initial meeting between the PI and the subject, data
for the creation of a Voice Range Profile (VRP) to serve as a baseline

measurement of vocal range and intensity capability was collected for each
subject. Using the data collected, a graph was created to display the boundaries of
each subject’s F0 and vocal intensity ranges. The VRP created as a baseline
measurement at the first meeting was compared to additional VRPs created for the
same subject with data collected at the end of both treatment phases as well as the
no-treatment phase. The VRPs for each subject were compared with the purpose
of recording any variations in results for each subject. Data collected from the
sound level meter for pitches that lie within the subject’s second passaggio were
analyzed to determine if improvements occurred. All F0 capabilities were

analyzed to determine if actual pitch range increased.
2) An octave arpeggio on /a/ designed to measure range extension: In addition to the

VRP, it was determined useful to measure range extension during an additional
singing task more similar to what a vocalist performs in daily practice. This
exercise was performed by each subject at the conclusion of each meeting. The
highest possible pitch sung by the subject was notated by the PI.
3) Highest and lowest possible pitches produced in whistle register phonation during
performance of Whistle Register Task 1 were used to illustrate for each subject
the range in which whistle register could be produced. In order to determine an

75
appropriate range for the use of whistle register exercises, the lowest and highest
possible pitches produced in whistle register phonation (using the deliberate
transition) in Whistle Register Task 1 were recorded each week.
4) Compilation of the perceptual ratings made by expert listeners: High quality
digital recordings of the vocalises and repertoire excerpts made throughout the
course of the study were played for a panel of eight expert auditors. Auditors
were trained singers who are college or university level voice teachers with strong
pedagogical training. All auditors were familiar with the terms “breathiness” and
“strain” and felt that they could perceptually identify these qualities in singers.
Each auditor received an assessment packet with evaluation instructions and a
flash drive containing a power point presentation of the audio samples recorded
during the study. During the perceptual evaluation process, expert judges listened
to 15-17 audio samples of each vocal task (Vocalises A and B, Repertoire
Excerpt) for each subject (n=240). These audio samples were presented on slides
that the judges could view on a computer of their choosing. The listening was
completed at the pace chosen by the individual judge and judges were allowed to
re-listen to the audio samples as many times as they felt necessary. The judges
were instructed to take breaks between slides if they needed to do so. All judges
received identical instructions and viewed the same Microsoft Power Point
presentation17.
The first slide in the presentation contained calibration audio samples with
examples of breathy and strained vocal quality at various severity ratings. These
17Judges 1, 2, and 8 participated in a pilot assessment exercise that included perceptual

evaluation of samples produced by Subjects 1 – 3. Based on recommendations from the pilot
exercise, minor changes were made to the evaluation instructions; however the changes were not
significant so the pilot ratings from Judges 1, 2, and 8 were used in the final analyses. In
addition, Judges 2 and 8 were given the new set of evaluation instructions and the same Microsoft
Power Point presentation as the other judges for evaluation of Subjects 4 and 5.
76
calibration audio samples were chosen from subjects’ performances of Vocalise
B. The calibration rating was assigned by the PI. Additional slides in the Power
Point presentation included one slide for each vocal task for each subject (15
slides). Each slide contained 15-17 short audio samples for each subject: baseline
+ one pattern Weeks 2-16 + one repeated sample. The repeated audio sample was
chosen randomly and included to determine intra-judge reliability. All audio
samples were randomized (arranged by a random number sequence generator) and

the repeated audio sample was chosen randomly for each slide. Figure 4.3 is an
example of a slide from the Auditory Assessment presentation. The slide shown
in Figure 4.3 contained one audio sample of Subject 1 performing Vocalise A
during each week of the study (n=15) and one repeated week (n=1).
Figure 2.5 Power Point Slide, Vocalise A, Subject 1

77
Auditors were asked to rate all audio samples on the following: 1) quality of
intonation, 2) vocal quality, 3) the presence and severity of breathiness, and (4)
the presence and severity of strain. Vocal Quality and Intonation were evaluated
using five point scales18 adapted from standard rating forms used in the field of
vocal performance. The presence and severity of Breathiness and Strain during
phonation was evaluated using a four point scale19 adapted by the PI for
perceptual evaluation of the singing voice from the GRBAS and Consensus
Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) rating scales delineated by
the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).
18This rating scale can be found in Appendix E.
19This rating scale can be found in Appendix E.

78
CHAPTER 3
REPORTING OF RESULTS
Possible Range for Whistle Register Phonation

Subjects were able to produce whistle register phonation over 36- 53% of their
total vocal range. This percentage was calculated for each subject by dividing the total
number of semitones produced using whistle register phonation during weekly
measurement using Whistle Register Task 1 by the number of semitones produced in the
T2 VRP. Table 3.1 shows the percentage of each subject’s total vocal range in which
whistle register phonation was possible during the performance of Whistle Register Task
1.
Table 3.1 The Percentage of Total Pitch Range Over Which Whistle Register
Phonation Was Produced by Subjects 1-5
Subject (Voice type) WR Range % total
S2 (Coloratura Soprano) C#5-A6 53%
S3 (Soprano) C5-Ab6 50%
S1 (Mezzo-soprano) C#5-Eb6 37%
S4 (Mezzo-soprano) C5-Eb6 37%
S5 (Mezzo-soprano) C5-E6 49%
For all subjects, the average lowest possible pitch produced in whistle register
was 587.9 Hz (around D5). This was consistent for all subjects, regardless of voice type
or experience. The average highest possible pitch for whistle register phonation was
1334.2 Hz (around E6). This varied between subjects: the sopranos (S2, S3) were able to
produce whistle register at higher pitches (average 1535 Hz, around G6), whereas the
79
mezzo-sopranos produced an average highest possible pitch in whistle register phonation
at 1201 Hz (around D6). In addition, subjects with more experience singing in whistle
register phonation (S2, S3, S5) tended to have higher average values, whereas subjects
with less experience singing in whistle register (S1, S4) had lower average values.
For all subjects, the average range for production of whistle register phonation
was 14 semitones (D5-E6). The average baseline range (after one week of practice on
Whistle Register Task 1) was 594.8 Hz-1244.8 Hz (around D5-Eb6). The average final
range was 548.2 Hz-1408.8 Hz (around C#5-F6). In all cases, subjects increased the
range in which they were able to produce whistle register phonation during the treatment
phases of this study. Table 3.2 shows the average lowest pitches and highest pitches for
whistle register phonation during performance of Whistle Register Task 1.
Table 3.2 Average Lowest and Highest Pitches for Whistle Register Phonation
Phase Average Lowest Pitch in Whistle Average Highest Pitch in Whistle Range
b
595 Hz (around D5) 1245 Hz (around E 6) D5–Eb6
Base Sopranos Mezzos Sopranos Mezzos Sopranos Mezzos
623 Hz (~Eb5) 576 Hz (~D5) 1568 Hz (G6) 1029 Hz (~C6) Eb5–G6 D5-G6
# #
548 Hz (around C 5) 1401 Hz (around F6) C 5-F6
Final Sopranos Mezzos Sopranos Mezzos Sopranos Mezzos
539 Hz (C-C#5) 555 Hz (~C#5) 1618 Hz (~G6) 1270 Hz (~Eb6) C(#)5-G6 C#5-Eb6
588 Hz (around D5) 1334 Hz (around E6) D5-E6
Overall Sopranos Mezzos Sopranos Mezzos Sopranos Mezzos
b b
614 Hz (~E 5) 574 Hz (~D5) 1535 Hz (~G6) 1201 Hz (~D6) E 5-G6 D5-D6
The range in which whistle register phonation could be produced is illustrated in
Figures 3.1-3.5. In addition, Figures 3.1-3.5 show the highest possible pitch produced in
comparison to the baseline for each subject. Pitch is plotted on the y-axis and the four
phases of the study are shown on the x-axis as a function of time.

80
Subject 1
B6
23
Bb6
A6
21
Ab6
G6
19
F#6
F6
17E
Eb6
15
D6
C#6
13
C6
B5
11
Bb5
A5
A9b5
G5
Withdrawal
F7#5 Treatment Phase I
Phase
Treatment Phase II
F5
5
E5
Eb5
3
D5
C#5
1
C5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Week
Highest Pitch Possible Pitch Produced - Range Task
Highest Possible Pitch Produced in Whistle Register - Whistle

Register Task #1
Lowest Possible Pitch Produced in Whistle Register - Whistle
Register Task #1
Baseline Highest Possible Pitch
Figure 3.1 Whistle Register Range & Highest Possible Pitch Produced – Subject 1
81
Subject 2
B6
23
Bb6
A6
21
Ab6
G6
19
F#6
F6
17E
Eb6
15
D6
C#6
13
C6
B5
11
Bb5
A5
A9b5
G5
Withdrawal
F7#5 Treatment Phase I Treatment Phase II
Phase
F5
5
E5
Eb5
3
D5
C#5
1
C5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Week

Register Task #1
Register Task #1
82
Subject 3
B6
23
Bb6
A6
21
Ab6
G6
19
F#6
F6
17E
Eb6
15
D6
C#6
Withdrawal
13
C6 Treatment Phase I
Phase
Treatment Phase II
B5
11
Bb5
A5
A9b5
G5
F7#5
F5
5
E5
Eb5
3
D5
C#5
1
C5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Week

Register Task #1
Register Task #1
83
Subject 4
B6
23
Bb6
A6
21
Ab6
G6
19
F#6
F6
17E
Eb6
15
D6
C#6
13
C6
B5
11
Bb5
A5
A9b5
G5
Withdrawal
Phase
Treatment Phase II
F5
5
E5
Eb5
3
D5
C#5
1
C5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Week

Register Task #1
Register Task #1
84
Subject 5
B6
23
Bb6
A6
21
Ab6
G6
19
F#6
F6
17E
Eb6
15
D6
C#6
13
C6
B5
11
Bb5
A5
A9b5
G5
Withdrawal
Phase
Treatment Phase II
F5
5
E5
Eb5
3
D5
C#5
1
C5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Week

Register Task #1
Register Task #1
85
Range Extension
All subjects showed an increase in their upper pitch range during the treatment
phases of this study. This is illustrated in Figures 3.1-3.5. For all subjects, the average
range increase was 9.8%, or an addition of 3.4 semitones to the top of the pitch range.
The average overall gain of high pitches was 4.3 semitones (a 12.7% increase in pitch
range) for mezzo-sopranos. The average overall gain of high pitches was 2 semitones (a
5.5% increase in pitch range) for sopranos. The number of semitones added to each
subject’s upper pitch range from Baseline to the T2 phase is quantified in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Total Number of Semitones Added to the Upper Pitch Range During
Study
Subject (Voice type) + Semitones % Range Increase
S2 (Coloratura Soprano) +1 3%
S3 (Soprano) +3 8%
S1 (Mezzo-soprano) +5 15%
Table 3.3 shows the number of semitones added to the upper pitch range in each
phase of the study. This was calculated by subtracting the subject’s baseline highest
pitch from the highest possible pitch the subject produced during the study. For all
subjects, the highest pitch produced during the study was recorded during the T2 final
session. S1, S2, S3 consistently produced their highest pitch phonation during the last
two-five weeks of the T2 phase. S4 produced her highest pitch phonation during the last
week of T1 and the last week of T2. The percentage of range increase was calculated by
86
dividing the number of gained semitones by the number of semitones produced in the
baseline VRP.
Average Number of Semitones Gained (Lost) in

Upper Range During Each Phase
4
3
Semitones Gained (Lost)
2 Subject 1
Subject 2
Subject 3
1
Subject 4
Subject 5
0
-1
Baseline Treatment Phase 1 No Treatment Treatment Phase 2
Phase
Figure 3.6 Average Number of Semitones Gained (Lost) in Upper Range During
Each Phase
With the exception of Subject 2, the increase in the upper pitch range was
associated with the treatment phases of the study. Subjects gained an average of 2.4
semitones during T1, when the whistle register tasks were introduced. Subjects lost an
average of 1.2 semitones during the NT phase, when practice of whistle register tasks
were withdrawn. Subjects gained an average of 2.2 semitones during T2, when the
whistle register tasks were reintroduced. Figure 3.6 shows the average number of
semitones gained/lost in the upper pitch range during each phase of the study for each
87
subject. A value was assigned to each week by calculating the distance of each highest-
pitch phonation from the previous baseline pitch in semitones. The values were averaged
for each phase of the study. Figure 3.7 is a comparison of the final performance measure
of each phase, and shows the number of semitones gained/lost in the upper pitch range
from the first week to final week of each phase of the study for each subject. The
distance in semitones between Baseline and the final measurement of T1, the final
measurements of T1 and NT, and the final measurement of NT and T2 were calculated.
It was expected that the gain of high pitches would be less for the sopranos in this study –
both S2 and S3 were able to produce remarkably high tones (Ab6, G6 respectively)
during baseline measurements.
Semitones Gained (Lost) In Upper Range

During Each Phase
[Final Performance Measurement]
6
4
Semitones Gained (Lost)
3 Subject 1
2 Subject 2
Subject 3
1
Subject 4
0 Subject 5
-1
-2
Baseline Treatment 1 No Treatment Treatment 2
Week 6 Week 3 Week 6
Figure 3.7 Semitones Gained (Lost) in Upper Range During Each Phase [Final
Performance Measurement]
88
Voice Range Profile

The increase in the upper pitch range for all subjects can be seen in the Voice
Range Profiles (VRP); however, due to constraint in the data collection procedure for the
VRP, this increase is shown to a lesser extent than in the data collected using the Range
Extension Measurement Exercise. The reason for this is that the VRP procedure requires
the subject to sustain a single phonation for at least 2 seconds on /a/ (either as soft as
possible or as loud as possible) for each data point. Phonation of this nature becomes
quite challenging on the uppermost pitches. Consequently, the Range Extension
Measurement Task was performed to obtain an additional measure of highest possible

pitch produced. As previously described, this task allowed the subject to vocalize freely
to the top of her pitch range using an octave arpeggio on /a/, a more accurate replication
of the singing tasks required for performance of vocalises and vocal repertoire.
Figures 3.8-3.12 show comparison of VRPs from all phases of the study for each
subject. For these graphs F0 (measured in Hz) is plotted horizontally on the x-axis and
intensity values (measured in dB SPL) are plotted vertically on the y-axis. Tables 3.4-3.8
contain the range of SPL values (in dB) for the pitches produced in second passaggio and
higher from all phases of the study for each subject. The range of SPL represents the
total dynamic range a subject was capable of producing on the given pitch.
Association between range extension and treatment phases can be seen in all
subjects, supporting the data collected in the Range Extension Measurement Task. In
addition, a relationship between improved dynamic range and the treatment phases can be
seen in Subjects 1-4. In other words, these subjects were able to produce softest and
loudest pitches in the range of the second passaggio and higher with greater intensity
differentiation (dynamic control) during the T1 and T2 phases, compared to Baseline and
NT phases. This was determined by comparing the subjects’ average SPL range value (in
dB) for each phase of the study.

89
VRP Data: Subject One
Figure 3.8 Subject 1 Voice Range Profile – Comparison of Baseline, T1, NT and T2
90
Table 3.4 Subject 1 - Comparison of Dynamic Range (Measured in dB SPL) for

Pitches Produced in the 2nd Passaggio and Higher During the Four Phases
of the Study
F0 SPL Range (in dB)
Pitch (Hz) BASELINE T1 NT T2
D5 587 9 12.1 14.5 12
Eb5 622 10.7 11 11 9
E5 659 11 10.5 12.1 12.1
F5 699 3 7.4 12.4 11.4
F#5 740 9.4 14 10.6 10
G5 784 7 11.4 8.9 11.7
Ab5 831 8 10 11 11
A5 880 12.5 12 6.8 14
Bb5 932 7.5 10.5 17 9.4
B5 988 0 14.4 3.9 8.7
C6 1047 0 6.5 0 9.6
C#6 1109 n/a 0 0 4.8
D6 1175 n/a 0 0 0
Eb6 1245 n/a n/a n/a 0

91
VRP Data: Subject Two
S2 Voice Range Profiles: Baseline & End of Treatment Phase 2

Baseline Softest Baseline Loudest Final Softest Final Loudest
110
Intensity/Sound Pressure Level (dB/SPL)
100
90
80
70
2nd passaggio
60
(C3) (A3) (C4) (A4) (C5) (A5) (C6) (A6)

50
110 Hz 220 Hz 440 Hz 880 Hz 1760 Hz
Pitch/Fundamental Frequency
92
Table 3.5 Subject 2 - Comparison of Dynamic Range (Measured in dB SPL) for Pitches
Produced in the 2nd Passaggio and Higher During the Four Phases of the
Study
Eb5 622 6 7.3 9.5 9.2
E5 659 9.4 8 9 11
F5 699 7 8.4 8.5 10.3
F#5 740 5 7.9 7.5 9
G5 784 8.6 5.5 7.2 9.4
Ab5 831 7 11.3 8 8.5
A5 880 8 8.1 7.1 13.7
Bb5 932 18 13.8 12 7.8
B5 988 12 13 11.9 12.2
C6 1047 8 4.7 5.6 6.4
C#6 1109 0.1 0 11.8 2.6
D6 1175 00 0 3.9 7.5
Eb6 1245 0 0 0 7.5
E6 1319 0 0 0 9.4
F6 1397 0 0 0 12.7
F#6 1475 0 0 0 0
G6 1568 0 0 n/a 0
Ab6 1661 0 0 n/a 0

93
VRP Data: Subject Three
94

of the Study
Eb5 622 18.7 21 16.8 22.1
E5 659 19.4 19 12 20
F5 699 9.2 22.7 6 17
F#5 740 10 14.3 7.1 20.6
G5 784 19 15 9.3 18.3
Ab5 831 11.2 17.5 11.7 18.9
A5 880 15 17.8 11 18
Bb5 932 23 14 11 18.8
B5 988 12.4 20.8 13 20.2
C6 1047 17.1 11.6 17 15.8
C#6 1109 11.4 18 10 14
D6 1175 10.6 14 15 13
Eb6 1245 11 0 10 9
E6 1319 0 0 6 7.7
F6 1397 0 0 0 3.2
F#6 1475 0 0 0 0
G6 1568 0 0 n/a 0
95
VRP Data: Subject Four
96

of the Study
D5 587 6.7 8 4 9.9
Eb5 622 8.2 8.6 5 9
E5 659 6.5 2.8 2.8 11.1
F5 699 6 7 4.4 9.6
F#5 740 5.7 2.3 1.4 7.3
G5 784 5.5 2.4 0 6.2
Ab5 831 10.1 2 0 7
A5 880 5.6 3 0 7.7
Bb5 932 3.4 7.7 0 7.3
B5 988 0 0.9 0 5.8
C6 1047 0 0 0 6.3
C#6 1109 n/a 0 0 9
D6 1175 n/a 0 0 1
Eb6 1245 n/a n/a n/a 0
E6 1319 n/a n/a n/a 0

97
VRP Data: Subject Five
98

of the Study
D5 587 25 27.4 22.6 25
Eb5 622 30 32.2 18.4 22
E5 659 24 21.3 17.4 27.7
F5 699 25.8 21 15.4 15.1
F#5 740 20.7 15 8.7 16.1
G5 784 24.6 17.1 14.7 19
Ab5 831 26.4 30.4 14.1 18
A5 880 22 22.1 22.9 21.8
Bb5 932 27.2 27.8 27.4 38.2
B5 988 26 28.5 29.7 27.3
C6 1047 31 30.8 0 6
C#6 1109 0 0 n/a 13

99
Perceptual Assessment of Audio Samples

The perceptual evaluation revealed that all subjects showed improved intonation
during the course of the study. Additionally, all subjects experienced a reduction in the
severity of strain during the course of the study. Furthermore, the subjects’ voices were
perceived to be breathier during the treatment phases of the study, when they were
practicing whistle register exercises daily.
For each perceptual quality (n=4), ratings given by the eight judges for each
subject’s performance of Vocalise A, Vocalise B, and the Repertoire Excerpt for the week
(n=3) were averaged. Mean values for Intonation, Vocal Quality, Breathiness, and Strain
were then calculated for each phase of the study. Four separate mixed-model ANOVAs
were performed to the compare the results of the judges’ perceptual ratings for
Intonation, Vocal Quality, Breathiness, and Strain for each subject during the four phases
of the study. A mixed-model ANOVA is a statistical analysis of variance in which the
mean differences in the variables of the judges’ ratings for Intonation, Vocal Quality,
Breathiness, and Strain in the four phases of the study were tested both between subjects
and within subjects. Significance was determined at the p<.05 level. This analysis
strategy allows detection of significant changes that occurred with the group of subjects
while at the same time accounting for the single-subject experimental design.
Results of Perceptual Analysis: Quality of Intonation

Table 3.9 and Figure 3.13 show the mean ratings for Intonation for all subjects
during each of the four phases of the study. In Figure 3.13 the four phases of the study
are represented on the x-axis and the 5-point rating system used for the perceptual
evaluation of Intonation is shown on the y-axis.
Mean Intonation ratings generally increased through the T1 phase and were
significantly higher for the NT phase and T2 phase compared to Baseline. Results of the
ANOVA for Intonation are quantified in Table 3.10.

100
Table 3.9 Mean Intonation Ratings During the Four Phases of the Study
PHASE Baseline Treatment 1 No Treatment Treatment 2
Subject 1 3.08 3.69 3.75 3.78
Subject 2 4.04 4.09 4.36 4.15
Subject 3 3.95 3.96 4.03 4.12
Subject 4 3.86 3.91 3.93 4.07
Subject 5 3.76 3.58 3.78 3.63
All Subjects 3.74 3.85 3.99 3.96
Average Intonation Rating During Each Phase

5.00
4.00
Subject 1
Rating
Subject 2
3.00 Subject 3
Subject 4
Subject 5
2.00 All Subjects
1.00
Baseline Treatment Phase No Treatment Treatment Phase
1 Phase 2
Figure 3.13 Mean Rating for Intonation for Subjects 1-5 During the Four Phases of the
Study
101
Table 3.10 Mixed-model ANOVA for Quality of Intonation
Type 3 Tests of Fixed Effects
Effect Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F
PHASE 3 209 2.99 0.0322*
SAMPLE 2 209 6.01 0.0029
PHASE*SAMPLE 6 209 0.57 0.7525
Differences of Least Squares Means

Standard
Effect PHASE _PHASE Estimate Error DF t Value Pr > |t|
PHASE 1_BASELINE 2_FIRST_TX -0.1087 0.09971 209 -1.09 0.2769
PHASE 1_BASELINE 3_NO_TX -0.2472 0.1097 209 -2.25 0.0252*
PHASE 1_BASELINE 4_SECND_TX -0.2145 0.09971 209 -2.15 0.0326*
PHASE 2_FIRST_TX 3_NO_TX -0.1385 0.07092 209 -1.95 0.0521
PHASE 2_FIRST_TX 4_SECND_TX -0.1058 0.05407 209 -1.96 0.0517
PHASE 3_NO_TX 4_SECND_TX 0.03274 0.07092 209 0.46 0.6448

*Difference between Phases is significant (p<.05).
Results of Perceptual Analysis: Vocal Quality

Table 3.11 and Figure 3.14 show the mean ratings for Vocal Quality for all
subjects during each of the four phases of the study. In Figure 3.14 the four phases of the
study are represented on the x-axis and the 5-point rating system used for the perceptual
evaluation of Vocal Quality is shown on the y-axis.

102
Table 3.11 Mean Vocal Quality Ratings During the Four Phases of the Study
Subject 1 2.38 2.84 2.81 2.81
Subject 2 3.88 3.66 3.97 3.76
Subject 3 3.50 3.53 3.56 3.63
Subject 4 3.29 3.26 3.21 3.32
Subject 5 3.29 3.31 3.37 3.28
All Subjects 3.26 3.32 3.43 3.36
Average Vocal Quality Rating During Each Phase

5.00
4.00
Subject 1
Rating
Subject 2
3.00 Subject 3
Subject 4
Subject 5
2.00 All Subjects
1.00
1 Phase 2
Figure 3.7 Mean Rating for Vocal Quality for Subjects 1-5 During the Four Phases of
the Study
103
Mean Vocal Quality ratings were not significantly different across the Baseline,
T1, NT, and T2 phases [F(3,209) = 1.27, p = 0.2845]. Results of the ANOVA for Vocal
Quality are quantified in Table 3.12.
Table 3.12 Mixed-model ANOVA for Vocal Quality
PHASE 3 209 1.27 0.2845
SAMPLE 2 209 1.00 0.3713
PHASE*SAMPLE 6 209 0.43 0.8550

Standard
PHASE 1_BASELINE 3_NO_TX -0.1366 0.08335 209 -1.64 0.1027
PHASE 1_BASELINE 4_SECND_TX -0.09646 0.07576 209 -1.27 0.2043
PHASE 2_FIRST_TX 3_NO_TX -0.07977 0.05389 209 -1.48 0.1403
PHASE 2_FIRST_TX 4_SECND_TX -0.03961 0.04108 209 -0.96 0.3360

No significant difference between phases is found (p<.05).
Results of Perceptual Analysis: Severity of Breathiness

Table 3.13 and Figure 3.15 show the mean ratings for severity of Breathiness for
all subjects during each of the four phases of the study. In Figure 3.15 the four phases of
the study are represented on the x-axis and the 4-point rating system used for the
perceptual evaluation of severity of Breathiness (not present, mild, moderate, severe) is
shown on the y-axis.

104
Table 3.13 Mean Severity of Breathiness Ratings During the Four Phases of the Study
Subject 1 1.67 1.76 1.69 1.88
Subject 2 0.83 1.25 0.69 1.06
Subject 3 0.17 0.22 0.17 0.21
Subject 4 1.14 1.46 0.86 1.40
Subject 5 0.81 0.66 0.68 0.65
All Subjects 0.92 1.08 0.8 1.05
Average Severity of Breathiness During Each Phase

3.00
(severe)
2.00
(moderate) Subject 1
Severity Rating
Subject 2
Subject 3
Subject 4
1.00 Subject 5
(mild)
All Subjects
0.00
(none)
1 Phase 2
Figure 3.8 Mean Rating for Severity of Breathiness for Subjects 1-5 During the Four
Phases of the Study
105
There was a significant effect of whistle register phonation exercises on severity
of Breathiness [F(3,209) = 6.66, p = 0.0003]. Severity of Breathiness generally increased
during T1, decreased during the NT phase, and increased again during T2. Mean
Breathiness ratings for all subjects were significantly lower in the NT phase than in the
T1 and T2 phases, suggesting that Breathiness was less severe when the subjects were not
practicing whistle register exercises. Results of the ANOVA for Breathiness are
quantified in Table 3.14.
Table 3.14 Mixed-model ANOVA for Severity of Breathiness
PHASE 3 209 6.66 0.0003*
SAMPLE 2 209 2.36 0.0972
PHASE*SAMPLE 6 209 0.95 0.4620

Standard
PHASE 1_BASELINE 3_NO_TX 0.1045 0.09256 209 1.13 0.2602
PHASE 1_BASELINE 4_SECND_TX -0.1155 0.08413 209 -1.37 0.1711
PHASE 2_FIRST_TX 3_NO_TX 0.2521 0.05985 209 4.21 <.0001*
PHASE 2_FIRST_TX 4_SECND_TX 0.03202 0.04562 209 0.70 0.4835
PHASE 3_NO_TX 4_SECND_TX -0.2200 0.05985 209 -3.68 0.0003*

106
Results of Perceptual Analysis: Severity of Strain
Table 3.15 Severity of Strain Ratings During the Four Phases of the Study
Subject 1 2.04 1.22 1.27 1.28
Subject 2 0.88 0.96 0.89 0.80
Subject 3 1.88 1.83 1.52 1.56
Subject 4 1.14 1.13 1.29 1.06
Subject 5 1.81 1.74 1.65 1.74
All Subjects 1.55 1.36 1.31 1.27
Average Severity of Strain During Each Phase

3.00
(severe)
2.00
(moderate) Subject 1
Severity Rating
Subject 2
Subject 3
Subject 4
1.00 Subject 5
(mild)
All Subjects
0.00
(none)
1 Phase 2
Figure 3.9 Mean Rating for Severity of Strain for Subjects 1-5 During the Four
Phases of the Study
107
Table 3.15 and Figure 3.16 show the mean ratings for severity of Strain for all
subjects during each of the four phases of the study. In Figure 3.16 the four phases of the
study are represented on the x-axis and the 4-point rating system used for the perceptual
evaluation of severity of Strain (not present, mild, moderate, severe) is shown on the y-
axis.
Table 3.16 Mixed-model ANOVA for Severity of Strain
PHASE 3 209 3.52 0.0161*
SAMPLE 2 209 1.55 0.2148
PHASE*SAMPLE 6 209 0.78 0.5851

Standard
PHASE 1_BASELINE 2_FIRST_TX 0.1739 0.08687 209 2.00 0.0465*
PHASE 1_BASELINE 3_NO_TX 0.2279 0.09557 209 2.39 0.0180*
PHASE 1_BASELINE 4_SECND_TX 0.2622 0.08687 209 3.02 0.0029*
PHASE 2_FIRST_TX 3_NO_TX 0.05398 0.06179 209 0.87 0.3833
PHASE 2_FIRST_TX 4_SECND_TX 0.08826 0.04710 209 1.87 0.0624

Results from statistical analysis of the judges’ perceptual evaluation showed that
all subjects experienced a significant reduction in severity of Strain over the course of the
study [F(3,209) = 3.52, p = 0.0161]. Mean Strain severity ratings for all subjects were
significantly lower for the T1, NT phase and T2 phase compared to Baseline, suggesting
108
that the subjects’ voices were perceived to be less strained when they were practicing
whistle register exercises and stayed at the improved level through the course of the
study. Results of the ANOVA for Strain are quantified in Table 3.16.
Challenges of Perceptually Evaluating Vocal Quality

It was anticipated that perceptual evaluation of subjective voice qualities would
be a complicated task and that potential variance in the judges’ ratings would create a
challenge in measuring improvement of Intonation, Vocal Quality, Breathiness, and
Strain. In order to reduce variation in the assessment of Vocal Quality, Breathiness, and
Strain, an effort was made to improve consistency in the judges’ perceptual evaluation of
these qualities by providing calibration audio samples. In addition, measures to test for
intra- and inter-judge reliability were implemented in the rating packets. Examples of the
variance in the perceptual ratings between the judges can be seen in Figures 3.17 and
3.18. Due to the variance in the judges’ ratings, it was deemed useful to analyze the
consistency of the judges’ perceptual ratings of Intonation, Vocal Quality, Breathiness,
and Strain both within and across judges. Intra- and inter- judge reliability was
determined by statistical analysis.

109
Figure 3.17 Judges’ Perceptual Ratings of Intonation and Vocal Quality for Subjects 1-
5 During Each Week of the Study
110
Figure 3.18 Judges’ Perceptual Ratings of Severity of Breathiness and Severity of

Strain for Subjects 1-5 During Each Week of the Study
111
Intra-judge Reliability
A Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) was used to calculate the intra-judge
reliability for perceptual evaluation of all vocal tasks. A PCC value of 1.00 indicates that
same-judge ratings for identical audio samples were in agreement. For subjective
evaluation by well-trained experts, a value above 0.70 shows acceptable consistency in
rating of tasks. The PCC values from the intra-judge reliability test are shown in Table
3.17.
Statistical analysis comparing the judges’ ratings for identical audio samples
shows that in this study the judges were consistent in their rating of Breathiness and had
difficulty rating Strain, Vocal Quality, and Intonation.
Table 3.17 Intra-judge Reliability Scores for Perceptual Evaluation of Intonation,

Vocal Quality, Breathiness, and Strain
Intonation Vocal Quality Breathiness Strain
PCC 0.65 0.60 0.76 0.57
Inter-judge Reliability
A PCC was used to calculate the correlations between each pair of judges’ rating
for all vocal tasks, and Cronbach’s Alpha was used as an overall measure of the inter-
rater reliability. Higher values of Cronbach’s Alpha are desirable (≥0.9 = excellent, ≥0.8
= good). Alpha values greater than or equal to 0.7 show acceptable internal correlation,
whereas values lower than 0.7 indicate questionable internal correlation.
Table 3.18 Inter-judge Reliability Scores for Perceptual Evaluation of Intonation,

Vocal Quality, Breathiness, and Strain
Intonation Vocal Quality Breathiness Strain
Cronbach’s α 0.53 0.69 0.80 0.62

112
Statistical analysis comparing the judges’ ratings for all audio samples shows that
in this study the judges were consistent in their rating of Breathiness, mediocre in rating
Strain and Vocal Quality, and not consistent in their rating of Intonation.
Statistical Analysis of Calibration Data

At the start of the perceptual evaluation process, the judges listened to four
calibration samples to demonstrate perceptual rating for Vocal Quality, Breathiness, and
Strain. The calibration rating was assigned by the PI. The calibration audio samples were
chosen from subjects’ performances of Vocalise B, so the judges rated the samples used
for calibration again later in the listening process. Statistical analysis to determine each
judge’s agreement with the calibration rating was performed by subtracting the judge’s
rating for the audio sample used for calibration from the calibration rating assigned by the
PI. Then, a mean value and standard deviation was calculated for each judge. A mean
value close to 0 indicates that on average the judge rated the audio sample very close to
the calibration scores. Values farther from 0 indicate that the judge tended to score
higher (shown by a positive mean) or lower (a negative mean) from the calibration
scores. In addition to the mean values, it is important to look at the standard deviations
for each judge. If a judge tended to score erratically, then the mean might be close to 0
but the standard deviation would be large. This data was calculated separately for Vocal
Quality, Breathiness, and Strain. Results of these measures are shown in Tables 3.19-
3.21.
For all three quality measures (Vocal Quality, Breathiness, and Strain), no means
were significantly different than 0. However, the standard deviation scores for Judge 7
(Vocal Quality, Breathiness, and Strain), Judge 3 (Vocal Quality), and Judge 6 (Strain)
demonstrate that those judges showed the greatest deviation from the calibration samples.
The standard deviation values of 1.91 (Judge 7, Breathiness) indicated that Judge 7 was
typically off from the calibration sample by two points on a three point scale.
113
Table 3.19 Mean and Standard Deviation Values for Judges 2-8 Showing Agreement
with Calibration Ratings of Vocal Quality
Analysis Variable : VOCAL QUALITY

Standard
JUDGE Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum
2 -1.00 0.82 -2.00 0.00
3 0.25 1.50 -2.00 1.00
4 -0.25 0.50 -1.00 0.00
5 0.75 0.50 0.00 1.00
6 0.25 0.96 -1.00 1.00
7 -0.25 2.06 -3.00 2.00
8 0.75 0.50 0.00 1.00

114
with Calibration Ratings of Breathiness
Analysis Variable : BREATHINESS

Standard
2 0.25 0.50 0.00 1.00
3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 -0.25 0.50 -1.00 0.00
5 -0.50 0.58 -1.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.82 -1.00 1.00
7 0.50 1.91 -2.00 2.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

115
with Calibration Ratings of Strain
Analysis Variable : STRAIN

Standard
2 0.75 0.50 0.00 1.00
3 0.50 1.00 0.00 2.00
4 1.00 0.82 0.00 2.00
5 -0.50 0.58 -1.00 0.00
6 0.00 1.41 -2.00 1.00
7 0.50 1.91 -1.00 3.00
8 -0.75 0.50 -1.00 0.00

116
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Range for Whistle Register Phonation

The results of this study show that singers of all voice types are capable of
producing whistle register phonation over a large range of pitches and support the
hypothesis that whistle register phonation is possible in the range of the second passaggio
and may be used in this range for conditioning purposes by singers of all voice types.
Subjects in this study were able to produce tones using what they felt to be whistle
register on pitches between C5 and Ab6. These findings are consistent with the overlap
range reported by Garnier et al. (2012) and with the recommended pitch range for whistle
register exercises found in some of the vocal pedagogy literature (Austin, 2008; Caldwell
& Wall, 2001; Coffin, 1980).
Whistle Register Exercises and Range Extension

The most remarkable finding of this study was the influence of whistle register
exercises on expanding the upper pitch range. The average overall gain of upper pitches
was +4.3 semitones for mezzo-sopranos and +2 semitones for sopranos. These results
support the hypothesis that whistle register phonation exercises can be used to facilitate
range extension for all female voice types. This evidence supports the claims of many
pedagogical manuals that list range extension as a benefit of whistle register phonation.
Influence of Whistle Register Exercises on Intonation &

Vocal Quality
In examining the influence of whistle register exercises on intonation and vocal
quality, the most significant finding of this study was that the severity of breathiness was
directly related to the performance of the whistle register exercises. In other words, the
subjects’ voices were perceived as being more breathy when they were practicing whistle
register exercises daily. What this finding suggests is that whistle register exercises may
117
not be an effective treatment for singers with breathy voices. However, a singer with a
predominantly breathy voice and a singer with a predominantly pressed voice would
likely not receive an identical training regimen. Consequently, the subjects in this study
must be considered individually. The strongest correlation between the whistle register
exercises and severity of breathiness can be seen in S2 and S4. In S2, a trend can be seen
in which strain decreases as breathiness increases during the treatment phases, and strain
increases as breathiness decreases during the withdrawal phase. For both S2 and S4, an
overall decrease in perception of strain can be observed with the increase in perception of
breathiness during the final phase of the study. Furthermore, S1 and S3 (who were
perceived as having the most predominantly strained voices at the start of the study)
showed the largest decreasing values for overall severity of strain (a difference of 0.80
for S1 and 0.32 for S3) after the whistle register exercises were introduced. These results
warrant further investigation to determine if whistle register exercises may decrease the
severity of strain in singers with pressed voice.
There were no significant findings regarding the influence of whistle register
exercises on overall vocal quality. One possible explanation for this was the variance
between the judges’ ratings in the perceptual evaluation tasks. Further research
investigating the influence of whistle register exercises on intonation, overall vocal

quality and severity of strain is needed.
Pedagogical Implications and Future Research
Efficacy of Whistle Register Exercises in Training the

Female Singing Voice
The findings of this study show that daily practice of whistle register exercises was
associated with a gain of semitones in the upper pitch range and that these exercises
could be used as a tool for range extension by female singers of all voice types. This was
demonstrated by the evidence that all five subjects experienced an increase in the top
118
pitches of their vocal range during the treatment phases of this study. In addition, all five
subjects were able to consistently produce whistle register phonation on pitches D5-E6, a
range that includes the second passaggio of the singing voice. These results imply that
phonation in whistle register need not be limited to the uppermost pitch range of the
female singing voice or trained exclusively by coloratura sopranos. The results of this
study show that female singers of all voice types are capable of producing whistle register
phonation over a large range of pitches and suggest that for the purpose of conditioning,
vocal exercises that use whistle register phonation can be performed by female singers of
all voice types.
One challenge voice teachers may face when teaching these exercises to students
is eliciting whistle register phonation in beginning singers. This study outlined

instruction of a very small lip opening to create a deliberate transition from head to
whistle register; this technique was more successful with experienced singers who
exhibited a good understanding of vocal registers. Further study of healthy techniques to
help beginning students produce whistle register phonation in the range of the second
passaggio is needed. For exploration of this matter, it would be beneficial to gather
information on the current practices of whistle register use in voice training. More
research is needed to determine how many voice teachers use whistle register phonation
when training female singers, and how many voice teachers are familiar with vocal
exercises that use purposeful whistle register in the range of the second passaggio.
Furthermore, anecdotal evidence from the responses could shed light on any common
practices for the use of whistle register in training female singers that exist among voice
teachers. This information could be easily gathered through an electronic survey.
Limitations of the Current Study that Lead to

Implications for Further Research
The current study was conducted over the course of 16 weeks, the typical length
of an academic semester. The lengths of the baseline, treatment, and withdrawal phases
119
were established after the completion of a 10-week pilot investigation. Two subjects,
classically trained singers in their 2nd and 3rd years of college-level voice study with no
experience singing in whistle register phonation participated in the pilot investigation.
The first treatment phase of the pilot study lasted three weeks and was determined to be
an insufficient amount of time for the beginning singers to become proficient in the
Whistle Register Tasks. Consequently, the first treatment phase of the current study was
expanded to six weeks to allow all subjects time to learn the Whistle Register Tasks and
become proficient in their performance. However, several of the subjects admitted to the
current study were skilled vocalists who were able to perform the Whistle Register Tasks
proficiently after one training session. In addition, lengthening the treatment phases
required the withdrawal phase of the current study to be shortened to three weeks. These
issues caused the following questions to be raised: How long does it take to see
improvement (in this study, improved intonation, vocal quality or extended range) as a
result of a treatment (in this study, daily practice of whistle register exercises)?, and Once
this improved skill is acquired, how long does it take to un-learn the skill after the
treatment is withdrawn? The results of this study imply that a longer no-treatment phase
may be necessary to see a decrease in skill correlated to the removal of a treatment. With
that in mind, the current study could be repeated with the implementation of tiered T1
lengths dependent upon subject’s performance of Whistle Register Tasks 1 & 2 (three-
week T1 phase for “expert”, five-week T1 phase for “beginner”). By shortening T1
phases, the NT phase could be expanded.
In addition, sole reliance on the PI’s trained ear and the subjects’ perception of
register sensation influenced the degree of certainty with which whistle register
phonation could be identified during the treatment phases of this study. Scientific
measurement of the physiological and acoustic properties of whistle register phonation in
the range of the second passaggio is possible; however, these measures were cost-
prohibitive and beyond the scope of this project. At this point, very little empirical
120
observation of whistle register phonation in the range of the second passaggio exists
within the scientific literature; information suggesting that whistle register phonation
could be produced in this pitch range is only provided in a small body of the pedagogical
literature and the impetus for the current study can be attributed to the use of PWRP
exercises in my own vocal training. The notion that whistle register can be produced in
the range of the second passaggio is supported in the scientific literature by the recent
findings of Garnier et al. (2012) and is also demonstrated in the results of the current
study.
Nonetheless, additional research that measures the physiological and acoustic
properties of whistle register phonation produced by trained singers in the range of the
second passaggio would provide a better understanding of whistle register phonation to

the scientific and pedagogical communities, and in turn offer valuable information to
voice teachers and singers for the healthful and appropriate implementation of whistle
register exercises in voice training.
The results of the perceptual evaluation tasks in the current study demonstrate a
need for research that explores more reliable ways to quantify perceptual evaluation of
vocal quality in singers. Scientific research has been conducted regarding the
quantification of voice quality, particularly for objective measure of pressed and breathy
phonation; however, voice teachers use the method of perceptual evaluation for
assessment tasks every day in the studio, the recital hall, and the adjudication center.
Problems related to the perceptual assessment of a vocal performance by one or more
auditors are reported in the pedagogical literature (Eberle-Fink, 2006; Maxfield, 2011);
the results of these investigations and of the current study demonstrate the need for
additional studies evaluating the effectiveness of perceptual analysis tasks. In order to
obtain information regarding the efficacy of the perceptual analysis tasks used in the
current study, the judges will be asked to give their expert views of the evaluation process
through completion of an exit survey.

121
All of the judges that participated in the current study possessed strong
pedagogical training (earned graduate degrees in vocal performance/pedagogy) and all
currently hold college or university-level teaching positions. However, statistical
analysis of the intra- and inter-judge reliability and calibration data revealed that all
judges had problems with perceptual evaluation of the singing voice. The variability in
the judges’ ratings may be attributed to a limitation in the methodology of the current
study pertaining to the perceptual evaluation tasks, such as listener fatigue or ambiguity
in the rating scales used for assessment of Intonation, Vocal Quality, Breathiness, and
Strain. Another interpretation of the intra- and inter-judge reliability tests and calibration
data could attribute the variability in the judges’ ratings to the amount and type of
training each individual judge has received in the perception and identification of
subjective vocal qualities during the course of their career. Considering that proficiency
in assessing voice quality is essential in the field of voice training, additional research
investigating the perception of subjective voice quality in singers is needed. Research in
this area could support the development of additional approaches to training singers and
voice teachers.
The adaptation of the single subject study design to determine efficacy in singer
training (where the effect of a particular vocal technique or exercise is the manipulated
variable) would be beneficial to the pedagogical community. However, in order for this
kind of investigation to be carried out, a standard methodology for perceptual evaluation
of subjective vocal qualities in singers must be created. Such a standard exists within the
speech pathology community: the CAPE-V and GRBAS scales for perceptual evaluation
are universally used in the field. These scales have yet to be successfully adapted for the
perceptual evaluation of singing tasks. Further research investigating the adaptation of
such measures for the perceptual evaluation of singing tasks would enable vocal
pedagogues and scientists to investigate the efficacy of different aspects of singer

122
training. The results of these efficacy studies would offer voice teachers additional tools
for the healthful training of singers.
Conclusion
This study investigated the efficacy of whistle register phonation exercises as
treatment for vocal challenges encountered in the second passaggio range of the female
singing voice. The perceptual evaluation revealed that all subjects showed improved
intonation during the course of the study. Additionally, all subjects experienced a
reduction in the severity of strain during the course of the study. Furthermore, the
subjects’ voices were perceived to be breathier during the treatment phases of the study,
when they were practicing whistle register exercises daily. That performance of whistle
register phonation exercises correlated to increased breathiness implies that the exercises
tested in this study may not be an effective treatment for singers with breathy voices.
Further research investigating the influence of whistle register exercises on intonation,
overall vocal quality, and severity of strain is needed. Results of the intra- and inter-rater
reliability tests demonstrate a need for research that explores more reliable ways to
quantify perceptual evaluation of vocal quality in singers.
Results of comparative Voice Range Profiles and a weekly Range Extension

Measurement Task showed a positive correlation between practice of whistle register
exercises and an increase in the upper pitch range in all subjects. This supports the
hypothesis that daily practice of whistle register exercises can extend a singer’s range.
The average overall gain of upper pitches was +4.3 semitones for mezzo-sopranos and +2
semitones for sopranos. In addition, data collected to measure the pitch range over which
whistle register phonation was possible showed an average range of 14 semitones (D5-
E6), supporting the notion that whistle register phonation is possible in the range of the
second passaggio and could be developed in this range by female singers of all voice
types.
123
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF VOCAL TASKS AND VOCALISES
Whistle Register Task 1:
Whistle Register Task 2:
Vocalise A:
124
DESCRIPTIONS OF VOCAL TASKS AND VOCALISES, p. 2
Vocalise B:
Range Extension Measurement Exercise:

(Could also be performed legato)
125
APPENDIX B
INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT
Project Title: A Case for the Use of Whistle Register Phonation in Conditioning the
Second Passaggio of the Female Voice.
Principal Investigator: Allison Holmes-Bendixen
Research Team Contact: Allison Holmes-Bendixen

(217) 714-0007
allison-holmes@uiowa.edu
This consent form describes the research study to help you decide if you want to
participate. This form provides important information about what you will be asked to do
during the study, about the risks and benefits of the study, and about your rights as a
research subject.
• If you have any questions about or do not understand something in this form, you
should ask the research team for more information.
• You should discuss your participation with anyone you choose such as family or
friends.
• Do not agree to participate in this study unless the research team has answered
your questions and you decide that you want to be part of this study.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY?

This is a research study. We are inviting you to participate in this research study because
you are a female singer who is experiencing one or more of the following vocal issues
while singing in your second passaggio: poor intonation, pressed phonation, breathy
phonation or excessive glottal attack.
The purpose of this research study is to measure the efficacy of whistle registration vocal
exercises as treatment for poor intonation, pressed or breathy vocal quality and/or
excessive glottal attack in a population of singers presenting with vocal challenges in the
upper-middle range (second passaggio) of their voice. The influence of whistle register
phonation on extending the vocal range of female singers will also be investigated.
HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL PARTICIPATE?

Approximately 20 people will take part in this study at the University of Iowa and
Kirkwood Community College.
HOW LONG WILL I BE IN THIS STUDY?
If you agree to take part in this study, your involvement will last for 16 weeks.
126
INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT, p. 2

WHAT WILL HAPPEN DURING THIS STUDY?
The study sessions will be divided into four stages. The first stage involves one session,
the second stage includes six weekly sessions, the third stage includes three weekly
sessions, and the fourth stage includes six weekly sessions.
If you agree to participate in this study at the first session (first stage) you will first be
asked to fill out a brief questionnaire to provide information about your previous singing
experience and vocal health history. You will be asked to provide your age, voice type,
and year in school and the names and locations of instructors for your private studies and
the location of any ensemble work you have done. You may skip any questions you do
not wish to answer. Following the questionnaire, the researcher will administer a Pitch
Glide Task to determine if you are able to produce whistle register phonation in the range
of your second passaggio. This exercise will include phonation in both head register and
whistle register. You will be asked to perceptually discriminate between the two types of
phonation.
Following the initial evaluation, you will attend 16 sessions: one session per week, each
lasting approximately 20 minutes.
During the second stage of the study, you will be asked to attend six weekly sessions at
which you will be expected to perform two (2) Vocal Tasks that use a combination of
head register phonation and whistle register phonation and sing (2) Vocalises and a 90-
second a capella Repertoire Excerpt of your choosing. Your vocalizations will be audio
recorded.
Between each session in the second stage, on your own, you will be asked to practice the
two (2) Vocal Tasks that use a combination of head register and whistle register
consecutively with the two (2) Vocalises and Repertoire Excerpt each day. You will be
given a task instruction and record form for the practice sessions. You will be asked to
keep a daily record of completion for each of the practice tasks.
During three weekly sessions in the third stage of this study, you will be expected to sing
two (2) Vocalises and the same 90-second a capella Repertoire Excerpt. The Vocalises
and Repertoire Excerpt will be recorded using a high-quality digital recording device.
Between each session during the third stage, on your own, you will be asked to practice
the two (2) Vocalises and Repertoire Excerpt each day, with NO phonation in whistle
register. Daily individual practice sessions should last 15-20 minutes. You will be asked
to complete the daily record form with information about your practice sessions.
127
WHAT WILL HAPPEN DURING THIS STUDY? (continued)

Stage four will involve six weekly sessions. The procedures for the stage four sessions
will be the same as stage two. Your vocalizations will be audio recorded. Between the
sessions, you will be will be asked to practice the two (2) Vocal Tasks that use a
combination of head register and whistle register consecutively with the two (2)
Vocalises and Repertoire Excerpt each day and complete the daily record form.
During the final session of each stage of the study, the researcher will collect data to
generate a Voice Range Profile (VRP). To obtain a VRP, the researcher will use a
keyboard to produce the pitch and a sound level meter to record the vocal intensity.
Starting at the lowest comfortable note in your vocal range, you will be asked to produce
the loudest and softest notes possible for the given pitch. This procedure will be repeated
on ascending pitches throughout your entire vocal range. The pitch and data from the
SPL meter will be recorded on a chart.
Audio/Video Recording
One aspect of this study involves making audio recordings of you. These recordings will
be used to measure your vocal quality and intonation at individual moments during the
course of the study. At the close of the 16-week study, these recordings will be evaluated
by five (5) college voice faculty members. The evaluation forms will be returned to the
researchers and the evaluations will be used for study analysis. These faculty members
will not know your name nor will they know at which point in the study each individual
recording was made. Following the evaluation, these audio files will be stored in a
password-protected file without any personal identifiers.
We request your permission to make video recordings of you during the study sessions.
These recordings will not be shared with any individual outside of the research team. No
study data will be obtained from these video recordings. During the course of the study,
these recordings may be reviewed by the PI or other members of the research team to
ensure the consistency of research procedures. At the end of the study these video
recordings will be deleted. You may participate in the study without agreeing to the
video recordings. Please indicate your decision by initialing your response in the
statement below.
[ _______ ] Yes [ _______ ] No I give you permission to make video recordings of

me during this study.
128

WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF THIS STUDY?
You may experience one or more of the risks indicated below from being in this study. In
addition to these, there may be other unknown risks, or risks that we did not anticipate,
associated with being in this study.
1. You may be uncomfortable knowing that your voice is being recorded and
evaluated by someone else.
2. If you are a student of the researcher, you may be concerned that your decision
whether or not to be in the study and/or your completion of the study procedures
will affect the grade you receive. Participation in the study will not be used to
determine course grades and the researcher will not review the recordings and
practice logs until after final grades have been submitted.
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF THIS STUDY?

We don’t know if you will benefit from being in this study. However, we hope that, in
the future, other people might benefit from this study because the knowledge gained may
lead to a more effective usage of whistle register phonation exercises in the training of
female singers.
WILL IT COST ME ANYTHING TO BE IN THIS STUDY?

You will not have any additional costs for being in this research study.
WILL I BE PAID FOR PARTICIPATING?
You will not be paid for being in this research study.
WHO IS FUNDING THIS STUDY?
The University and the research team are receiving no payments from other agencies,
organizations, or companies to conduct this research study.
WHAT ABOUT CONFIDENTIALITY?
We will keep your participation in this research study confidential to the extent permitted
by law. However, it is possible that other people such as those indicated below may
become aware of your participation in this study and may inspect and copy records
pertaining to this research. Some of these records could contain information that
personally identifies you.
• federal government regulatory agencies,
• auditing departments of the University of Iowa, and
• the University of Iowa Institutional Review Board (a committee that reviews and
approves research studies)
129
WHAT ABOUT CONFIDENTIALITY? (continued)

To help protect your confidentiality, we will use a number and not your name to identify
the data we collect for this study. We will keep the list linking your study number and
your name in a separate location that is accessible only to the researchers on this project.
After completion of the study, the list will be destroyed. We will store all study materials
in locked files and will keep all electronic study files in password protected computers.
If we write a report or article about this study or share the study data set with others, we
will do so in such a way that you cannot be directly identified.
IS BEING IN THIS STUDY VOLUNTARY?

Taking part in this research study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to take
part at all. If you decide to be in this study, you may stop participating at any time. If
you decide not to be in this study, or if you stop participating at any time, you won’t be
penalized or lose any benefits for which you otherwise qualify. If you decide not to be in
this study, or if you stop participating at any time, it will in no way affect your final grade
for the course.
Will I Receive New Information About the Study while Participating?

If we obtain any new information during this study that might affect your willingness to
continue participating in the study, we’ll promptly provide you with that information.
Can Someone Else End my Participation in this Study?

Under certain circumstances, the researchers might decide to end your participation in
this research study earlier than planned. This might happen because you have missed two
consecutive sessions throughout the course of the study. Your participation may also be
terminated if you fail to comply with the practice requirements of 10-15 minutes work on
the Vocal Tasks each day.
WHAT IF I HAVE QUESTIONS?
We encourage you to ask questions. If you have any questions about the research study
itself, please contact: Allison Holmes-Bendixen, (217) 714-0007, allison-
holmes@uiowa.edu. If you experience a research-related injury, please contact Eileen
Finnegan (319) 335-8717.
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research subject or
about research related injury, please contact the Human Subjects Office, 105 Hardin
Library for the Health Sciences, 600 Newton Rd, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
52242-1098, (319) 335-6564, or e-mail irb@uiowa.edu. General information about being
a research subject can be found by clicking “Info for Public” on the Human Subjects
Office web site, http://research.uiowa.edu/hso. To offer input about your experiences as a
research subject or to speak to someone other than the research staff, call the Human
Subjects Office at the number above.
130
This Informed Consent Document is not a contract. It is a written explanation of what

will happen during the study if you decide to participate. You are not waiving any legal
rights by signing this Informed Consent Document. Your signature indicates that this
research study has been explained to you, that your questions have been answered, and
that you agree to take part in this study. You will receive a copy of this form.
Subject's Name (printed):
__________________________________________________________
Do not sign this form if today’s date is on or after EXPIRATION DATE: 08/16/13 .
__________________________________________ _________________
(Signature of Subject) (Date)
Statement of Person Who Obtained Consent

I have discussed the above points with the subject or, where appropriate, with the
subject’s legally authorized representative. It is my opinion that the subject understands
the risks, benefits, and procedures involved with participation in this research study.
_________________________________________ ________________
(Signature of Person who Obtained Consent) (Date)
131
APPENDIX C
SUBJECT INTAKE FORM AND VOCAL HEALTH
QUESTIONNAIRE
SUBJECT INTAKE FORM:

Subject #: Date:
Age: Voice Type:
Year in school:
PREVIOUS SINGING EXPERIENCE

Private Study:
Instructor Location Dates
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Ensemble:
Location/Institution Dates
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
132
SUBJECT INTAKE FORM, p. 2:
VOCAL HABITS
Please indicate the number of hours of voice use per week for the activities listed, as
well as for other activities that involve a significant amount of voice use. Please
refer only to those activities in which you were engaged within the last four weeks.
Activity: Hours per week
Solo singing (voice lessons, coachings, practicing) _____________
Ensemble rehearsals (choral, opera) _____________

Teaching (studio or lecture) _____________
Others _____________
Have you ever sung in whistle register? Yes No

Have you ever been taught how to sing in whistle register? Yes No
Has your voice teacher ever used whistle register in vocal warm-ups? Yes No
What is the highest note that you vocalize to?
How much practice time (per day) do you spend on vocal exercises?
VOCAL HEALTH HISTORY

Have you had any illness(es) that affected your voice within the last two weeks
(upper respiratory infection, a cold, sinus infection, etc.)? Yes No
If yes, please explain the symptoms and nature of your illness.
Within last three years have you…
Been to a doctor because of a voice problem? Yes No

Been put on voice rest for voice problems? Yes No
Received voice therapy for voice problems? Yes No

If yes, please explain:
133
WEEKLY VOCAL HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE:
Subject #: Date:
VOCAL HEALTH CONDITIONS
Have you vocalized today? Yes No
If yes, how much (in minutes)?
If yes, in what manner (choral rehearsal, voice lesson, etc)?
GENERAL HEALTH CONDITIONS
Do you feel sick today? Yes No
If yes, please describe:
How many hours of sleep did you get last night?
Are you menstruating today? Yes No

134
APPENDIX D
WEEKLY VOCAL TASKS: TREATMENT PHASES
Subject #:
Week #:
All tasks to be practiced one time per day:
1a. Whistle Register Task #1 (must be performed consecutively with Vocalise A)
Instructions: Sing starting at the bottom of target pitch range. Ascend by half-steps
through the top of your vocal range. This task should be performed a capella. You may
use a keyboard to play the starting pitch or chord for each ascending repetition.
MON TUES WED THURS FRI SAT SUN

Mark an “X” in the appropriate box when completed.
1b. Vocalise A (must be performed consecutively with Whistle Register Task #1)
Instructions: Sing this exercise in your target pitch range. This task should be
performed a capella. You may use a keyboard to play the starting pitch or chord for this
task.
Mark an “X” in the appropriate box when completed. MON TUES WED THURS FRI SAT SUN
135
WEEKLY VOCAL TASKS TREATMENT PHASES, p. 2

Subject #:
Week #:
All tasks to be practiced one time per day:
2a. Whistle Register Task #2 (must be performed consecutively with Vocalise B)

2b. Vocalise B (must be performed consecutively with Whistle Register Task #2)

3. Repertoire Excerpt
Instructions: Sing your repertoire excerpt a capella. You may use a keyboard to play
the first interval.
136
APPENDIX E
WEEKLY VOCAL TASKS: NO-TREATMENT PHASE
Subject #:
Week #:
All Tasks to be practiced one time per day:
1. Vocalise A
Instructions: Sing this exercise in your target pitch range. This task should be
performed a capella. You may use a keyboard to play the starting pitch or chord for this
task.
Mark an “X” in the appropriate box when completed. MON TUES WED THURS FRI SAT SUN
2. Vocalise B

3. Repertoire Excerpt
Instructions: Sing your repertoire excerpt a capella. You may use a keyboard to play
the first interval.
137
APPENDIX F
AUDITORY ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
VOCAL QUALITY
Guidelines for Assessing Vocal Quality:
Please listen to the audio samples and indicate the perceived quality of vocal timbre on
the scale by assigning a number to the corresponding audio sample.
Vocal Quality during the task is:

5 Superior, tone clear and vibrant throughout, resonant and lacking tension
4 Excellent, tone is resonant throughout the majority of the range
3 Good, basic tonal concept with inconsistencies throughout entire range
2 Fair, weak or forced tonal production much of the time
1 Poor, a lack of understanding of how to produce a healthy tone
Then indicate if the perceived vocal quality contains breathiness or strain by circling a
number (to indicate the severity of the perceived quality).
B= Breathiness S= Strain
0=none 1=mild 2=moderate 3=severe
This scale uses the objective terms “Breathiness” and “Strain” to evaluate perceived
vocal quality. “Breathiness” is defined as the presence of audible air escape in the voice.
“Strain” is defined as perception of excessive vocal effort (hyperfunction, or pressed
voice).
INTONATION
Guidelines for Assessing Intonation:
Please listen to the audio samples and indicate the perceived quality of intonation by
assigning a number to the corresponding audio sample.
The task is performed:

5 with a strong sense of tonality, all pitches are in tune
4 with a general sense of tonality, fails to adjust on few isolated pitches
3 with some sense of tonality, many pitches are out of tune
2 with significant intonation problems throughout
1 with no sense of tonality
138
APPENDIX G
SAMPLE FORM: PERCEPTUAL EVALUATION
VOCALISE A
Vocalise A is designed to measure VOCAL QUALITY and INTONATION. Please

listen to and rate the audio samples in Slides 3 - 7.
SLIDE 3: Subject 1, Vocalise A

Sample 1. RATING Present:
Breathiness 0 1 2 3
VOICE QUALITY
Strain 0 1 2 3
INTONATION
Breathiness 0 1 2 3
VOICE QUALITY
Strain 0 1 2 3
INTONATION
Breathiness 0 1 2 3
VOICE QUALITY
Strain 0 1 2 3
INTONATION
139
REFERENCE LIST
Appelman, D. R. (1986). The science of vocal pedagogy; theory and application.

Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Austin, S. F. (2004). Register unification – Give me a break!. Journal of Singing, 61(2),

199-203.
Austin, S. F. (2008). Building strong voices: Twelve different ways! (part II). The Choral
Journal, 48(8), 59-73.
Brown, O. L. (1996). Discover your voice: How to develop healthy vocal habits. San
Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
Caldwell, R., & Wall, J. (2001). Excellence in singing: Multilevel learning and multilevel
teaching (Vol. 3). Redmond, WA: Caldwell Publishing Company.
Coffin, B. (1980). Coffin’s overtones of Bel Canto. Meutchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press,
Inc.
Colton, R. (1972). Spectral characteristics of the modal and falsetto registers. Folia
Phoniatrica, 24(5), 337-344.
David, M. (1995). The new voice pedagogy. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Eberle Fink, K. (2006). Perceptual acoustic assessment of singing. Journal of Singing,

63(1), 35-43.
Echternach, M., Sundberg, J., Arndt, S., Markl, M., Schumacher, M., & Richter, B.
(2008). Vocal tract in female registers – A dynamic real-time MRI study. Journal
of Voice, 24(2), 133-139.
Emil-Behnke, K. (1945). The technique of singing. London: Williams & Norgate, Ltd.
Garcia, Manuel. (1982). A complete treatise on the art of singing: Part 1. (Paschke, D.
V., Ed. & Trans.). New York, NY: Da Capo Press, Inc. (Original work published
in 1841).
Garnier, M; Henrich, N., Crevier-Buchman, L., Vincent, C., Smith, J. & Wolfe, J. (2012).
Glottal behavior in the high soprano range and the transition to the whistle
register. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(1), 951-962.
Grillo, E. U. & Verdolini, K. (2006). Evidence for distinguishing pressed, normal,

resonant and breathy voice qualities by laryngeal resistance and vocal efficiency
in vocally trained subjects. Journal of Voice, 22(5), 546-552.
Henrich, N. (2006). Mirroring the voice from Garcia to present day: Some insights into
singing voice registers. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 31(1), 3-14.
Henrich, N., d’Alessandro, C., Doval, B. & Castellengo, M. (2005). Glottal open quotient
in singing: Measurements and correlation with laryngeal mechanisms, vocal
140
intensity, and fundamental frequency. Journal of the Acoustical Society of

America, 117(3), 1417 – 1430.
Henrich, N., Bernard R., & Castellengo, M. (2003). On the use of electroglottography for
characterization of the laryngeal mechanisms. In Bresin, R. (Ed), Proceedings of
the Stockholm Music Acoustics Conference (SMAC03), August 6-9, 2003, Vol II,
(pp. 455-458). Stockholm, Sweden.
Hillman, R., Holmberg, E., Perkell, J., Walsh, M, & Vaughan, C. (1989). Objective
assessment of vocal hyperfunction: An experimental framework and initial
results. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32(2), 373-392.
Hirano, M., Hibi, S., & Sanada, T. (1989). Falsetto, head/chest, and speech mode: An
acoustic study with three tenors. Journal of Voice, 3(2), 99-103.
Hirano, M, Ohala, J., & Vennard, W. (1969). The function of laryngeal muscles in
regulating fundamental frequency and intensity of phonation. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Research, 12(3), 616-628.
Hirano, M., Vennard, W., & Ohala, J. (1970). Regulation of register, pitch, and intensity
of voice. Folia Phoniatrica, 22(1), 1-20.
Hollien, H. (1983). Report on vocal registers. In Lawrence, V. L. (Ed.), Transcripts of the

twelfth symposium care of the professional voice (pp. 1-6). New York, NY: The
Voice Foundation.
Kearns, K. P. (1986). Flexibility of single-subject experimental designs. Part II: Design
selection and arrangement of experimental phrases. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Disorders, 51(3), 204-214.
Keidar, A., Hurtig, R. & Titze, I. (1987). The perceptual nature of vocal register change.
Journal of Voice, 1(3), 223- 233.
Kochis-Jennings, K.A. (2008). Intrinsic laryngeal muscle activity and vocal fold
adduction patterns in female vocal registers: Chest, chestmix, and headmix.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ir.uiowa.edu.
Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D.
M., & Shadish, W. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation.
Retrieved from What Works Clearinghouse website:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf.
Large, J. & Murry, T. (1978). Studies of the Marchesi model for female registration. In
Large, J. (Ed.), Contributions of voice research to singing (pp. 185-199).
Houston, TX: College-Hill Press.
Maxfield, L.M. (2011). Application of principles from motor-learning theory to the

studio voice lesson: effects of feedback frequency on retention of classical singing
technique. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ir.uiowa.edu.
McCoy, S. (2004). Your voice: An inside view - Multimedia voice science and pedagogy.
Princeton, NJ: Inside View Press.
141
McKinney, J. C. (1994). The diagnosis and correction of vocal faults: A manual for
teachers of singing and for choir directors. Nashville, TN: Genevox Music
Group.
Miller, D. G. (2000). Registers in singing: Empirical and systematic studies in the theory
of the singing voice. (Doctoral dissertation). Thesis University of Groningen, the
Netherlands.
Miller, D. G. & Schutte, H. K. (1993). Physical definition of the ‘Flageolet Register’.

Journal of Voice. 7(3), 206-212.
Miller, R. (1986). The structure of singing: System and art in vocal technique. New York,
NY: Schirmer Books.
Miller, R. (1997). National schools of singing: English, French, German and Italian
techniques of singing revisited. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Miller, R. (2000). Training soprano voices. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Murry, T., Xu, J., Woodson, G. (1998). Glottal configuration associated with
fundamental frequency and vocal register. Journal of Voice, 12(1), p. 44-49.
Stark, J. (1999). ‘Bel Canto’: A history of vocal pedagogy. Toronto, ON: University of
Toronto Press, Inc.
Sundberg, J. (2004). Estimating perceived phonatory glottal pressedness in singing from
flow glottograms. Journal of Voice, 18(1), 56-62.
Svec, J. G., Sundberg, J., & Hertegard, S. (2008). Three registers in an untrained female
singer analyzed by videokymography, strobolaryngoscopy and sound
spectrography. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 123(1), 347-353.
Thurman, L., Welch, G., Theimer, A. & Klitzke, C. (2004). Addressing vocal register
discrepancies: An alternative, science-based theory of register phenomena. In
Proceedings of the Second International Conference of the Physiology and
Acoustics of Singing, Denver, CO.
Titze, I. R. (1988). A framework for the study of vocal registers. Journal of Voice, 2(3),
183-194.
Titze, I. R. (2000). Principles of voice production. Iowa City, IA: National Center for
Voice and Speech.
Titze, I. R. (2006). Voice training and therapy with a semi-occluded vocal tract:
Rationale and scientific underpinnings. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 49(2), 448-459.
Titze, I. R. (2007). Resurrection from the Coffin. Journal of Singing, 64(2), 199-201.
Titze, I. R. (2008). A hypothesis about whistle voice. Journal of Singing, 64(4), 473-475.
Titze, I. R. (2009). Another incremental step in reviving and revising Coffin’s favorable
vowel chart. Journal of Singing, 65(3), 329-331.
142
Van den Berg, J. (1963). Vocal ligaments versus registers. In J. Large (Ed.),
Contributions of voice science to singing (pp. 146-164). Houston, TX: College-
Hill Press.
Vennard, W. (1967). Singing: The mechanism and the technic. New York, NY: Carl
Fisher, Inc.
Verdolini, K., Chan, R., Titze, I. R., Hess, M., & Beirhals, W. (1998). Correspondence of
electroglottographic closed quotient to vocal fold impact stress in excised canine
larynges. Journal of Voice, 12(4), 415-423.
Vilkman, E., Alku, P., and Laukkanen, A.A. (1995). Vocal-fold collision mass as a
differentiator between registers in the low pitch range. Journal of Voice, 9(1), 66-
73.
Walker, S. J. (1986). An Investigation of the whistle register in the female voice.
(Doctoral dissertation). Thesis North Texas State University, Denton, TX.
Walker, S. J. (1988). An Investigation of the Whistle Register in the Female Voice.

Journal of Voice, 2(2), 140-150.
Ware, C. (1998). Basics of vocal pedagogy: The foundations and process of singing. The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Whistle Register

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Whistle Register

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

THE INFLUENCE OF WHISTLE REGISTER PHONATION EXERCISES

IN CONDITIONING THE SECOND PASSAGGIO

OF THE FEMALE SINGING VOICE

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

Thesis Supervisors: Associate Professor Eileen M. Finnegan

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

ALLISON RUTH HOLMES-BENDIXEN

All Rights Reserved

This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of

Allison Ruth Holmes-Bendixen

has been approved by the Examining Committee

Thesis Committee: ___________________________________

of my family, friends, and colleagues; and I am thrilled to have this opportunity to

acknowledge their contributions.

statistical analysis portion of this research.

Humanities department at Kirkwood Community College, especially Dr. Jennifer

study and their continuous support of my creative and scholarly pursuits.

unconditional love and extraordinary encouragement I have received from my family.

technical expertise during the research process.

of singing in whistle register.

A treatment-no treatment (ABAB) research design was used. Five female

Results of comparative Voice Range Profiles and a weekly Range Extension

Measurement Task showed a positive relationship between practice of whistle register

mezzo-sopranos and +2 semitones for sopranos. In addition, data collected to measure

the p<.05 level.

There was a significant effect of whistle register phonation exercises on severity

not practicing whistle register exercises.

Severity of strain generally decreased continually throughout all phases. Mean

1, No Treatment, and Treatment Phase 2 were statistically significant [F(3,209) = 3.52, p

on vocal quality was not significant at the p<.05 level.

A Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) was used to calculate the intra-judge

Further research investigating the influence of whistle register exercises on intonation,

quantify perceptual evaluation of vocal quality in singers.

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..............................................................xv

1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...........................................................................6

3 REPORTING OF RESULTS .........................................................................78

Possible Range for Whistle Register Phonation .............................................78

4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ......................................................................116

Range for Whistle Register Phonation .........................................................116

A DESCRIPTION OF VOCAL TASKS AND VOCALISES ...........................123

B INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT ......................................................125

C SUBJECT INTAKE FORM AND VOCAL HEALTH

E WEEKLY VOCAL TASKS: NO-TREATMENT PHASE ..........................136

F AUDITORY ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES ..............................................137

G SAMPLE FORM: PERCEPTUAL EVALUATION ....................................138

REFERENCE LIST .........................................................................................................139

Table 1.1 Characteristics of Whistle Register Phonation Compared to Chest

Table 1.2 Whistle Register Terminology ...................................................................36

Table 2.1 Subject Intake Information ........................................................................61

Table 2.2 Experimental Phases and Timeline ............................................................63

Table 2.5 Pitch Ranges for Whistle Register Tasks ...................................................71

Table 3.4 Subject 1 - Comparison of Dynamic Range (Measured in dB SPL)

Table 3.5 Subject 2 - Comparison of Dynamic Range (Measured in dB SPL)

Table 3.7 Subject 4 - Comparison of Dynamic Range (Measured in dB SPL)

Table 3.8 Subject 5 - Comparison of Dynamic Range (Measured in dB SPL)

Table 3.12 Mixed-model ANOVA for Vocal Quality ...............................................103

Table 3.14 Mixed-model ANOVA for Severity of Breathiness ................................105

Table 3.16 Mixed-model ANOVA for Severity of Strain .........................................107

Table 3.18 Inter-judge Reliability Scores for Perceptual Evaluation of

Figure 1.1 Propagation of Vocal Sound ......................................................................11

Figure 1.2 Yodels at the Fourth with Whistle Register ...............................................49