SavedAdd your journal

Journals / The Turkish Journal of Ear Nose and Throat / 2014 / Volume: 24 Issue: 6

Evaluation of music department students who passed the entrance exam with phonetogram Voice Range Profile

Müzik bölümü giriş sınavında başarılı olan öğrencilerin fonotogram Voice Range Profile ile değerlendirilmesi

Çağıl Gökdoğan(Gazi Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kulak Burun Boğaz Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı, Odyoloji Bilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)
Ozan Gökdoğan(Memorial Hastanesi, Kulak Burun Boğaz Hastalıkları Bölümü, Ankara, Türkiye)
Esra Şahin(Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, Güzel Sanatlar Eğitimi Bölümü Müzik Öğretmenliği Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)
Metin Yılmaz(Gazi Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kulak Burun Boğaz Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)
Pages
—
Publication Date
2014-12-25
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Our study results suggest that the voice interval of the department of music is higher than the control group and that plays a major role in their acceptance to the department of music.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: This study aims to evaluate phonetogram data of the students in the department of music who passed the entrance exam.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: The phonetogram data of 44 individuals with a good voice quality in the department of music and age-matched individuals who were not trained in the field of music or not involved in music amateurish as the control group were compared.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Our study results suggest that the voice interval of the department of music is higher than the control group and that plays a major role in their acceptance to the department of music.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:objective voice analysis · phonetogram · vocal training

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate phonetogram data of the students in the department of music who passed the entrance exam. Materials and Methods: The phonetogram data of 44 individuals with a good voice quality in the department of music and age-matched individuals who were not trained in the field of music or not involved in music amateurish as the control group were compared. The voice of both groups were recorded using the voice range profile within the scope of Kay Elemetrics CSL Model 4300 B programmed. Results: There was a significant difference in the voice range profile parameters including max Fo, Fo range, Fo range St , min dB SPL, and max dB sound pressure level p<0.05 . Conclusion: Our study results suggest that the voice interval of the department of music is higher than the control group and that plays a major role in their acceptance to the department of music.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, müzik bölümü giriş sınavında başarılı olan öğrencilerin fonotogram verileri değerlendirildi.Gereç ve Yöntemler: İyi kaliteli ses olarak belirtilen 44 müzik bölümü öğrencisinin fonotogram verileri, herhangi bir müzik eğitimi almamış veya amatör olarak müzikle uğraşmamış aynı yaş grubundaki bireyler ile karşılaştırıldı. Ses kayıtları için Kay Elemetrics CSL Model 4300 B programında yer alan voice range profile kullanıldı.Bulgular: Voice range profile parametrelerinde max Fo, Fo range, Fo range St , min dB SPL ve max dB sound pressure level değerleri arasında anlamlı bir farklılık belirlendi p

🔖

Cite This Article

Gökdoğan, Ç., Gökdoğan, O., Şahin, E., Yılmaz, M. (2014). Evaluation of music department students who passed the entrance exam with phonetogram Voice Range Profile. The Turkish Journal of Ear Nose and Throat, Volume: 24 Issue: 6. https://ajindex.com/articles/1329540

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (23)

  1. Siupsinskiene N. Quantitative analysis of Professional trained versus untrained voices. Medicana 2003;39:36- 46.
  2. Sataloff RT., Professional voice the science and art of clinical care. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group; 1997.
  3. LeBorgne WD, Weinrich BD. Phonetogram changes for trained singers over a nine- month period of vocal training. J Voice 2002;16:37-43.
  4. Sulter AM, Wit HP, Schutte HK, Miller DG. A structured approach to voice range profile (phonetogram) analysis. J Speech Hear Res 1994;37:1076-85.
  5. Çelik O. Kulak Burun Boğaz Hastalıkları ve Bas- Boyun Cerrahisi. İstanbul: Turgut Yayıncılık; 2002.
  6. Kwon HS, Cho WH, Suh SJ. Time-selective windowing technique in free-field microphone reciprocity calibration. J Acoust Soc Am 2013;134:237-45.
  7. Awan S, Phonetographic profiles and Fo-SPL characteristics of untrained versus trained vocal groups. J Voice, 1991;5:41-50.
  8. Sulter A, Schutte H, Miller D, Differences in phonetogram features between male and female subjects with and without vocal training. J Voice 1995;9:363-77.
  9. Bless D, Baken R, International association of logopedics and phoniatrics (IALP) voice committee discussion of assessment topics. J Voice 1992;6:194-210.
  10. Gramming P. The phonetogram: An experimental and clinical study. Malmö, Sweden: University of Lund; 1988.
  11. Damsté PH. The phonetogram. Pract Otorhinolaryngol (Basel) 1970;32:185-7.
  12. Coleman RF. Sources of variation in phonetograms. J Voice 1993;7:1-14.
  13. Pacon J. Objective acoustic voice-quality parameters in the computer phonetogram. J Voice 1991;5:203-16.
  14. Pacon J, Plomp R. Automatic phonetogram recording supplemented with acoustical voice-quality parameters, J Speech Hear Res 1988;3;710-23.
  15. Titze, Ingo R. Principles of voice production. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1994.
  16. Mendes AP, Rothman HB, Sapienza C, Brown WS. Effects of vocal training on tha acoustic parameteres of thr singing voice. J Voice 2003;17:529-43.
  17. Hollien H, Brown WS, Hollien K. Vocal fold length associated with modal, falsetto and varying intensity phonations. Folia Phoniatr 1971;23:66-78.
  18. Siupsinskiene N, Lycke H. Effects of vocal training on singing and speaking voice characteristics in vocally healthy adults and children based on choral and nonchoral data. J Voice 2011;25:e177-89.
  19. Burder EH, Wolf T, Instrumental and perceptual evaluations of two related singers. J Voice 2003;17:228-44.
  20. Pabon P, Stallinga R, Södersten M, Ternström S. Effects on vocal range and voice quality of singing voice training: the classically trained female voice. J Voice 2014;28:36-51.
  21. Hirano M. Objective evaluation of the human voice: clinical aspects. Folia Phoniatr 1989;41:89-144.
  22. Timmermans B, De Bodt M, Wuyts F, Van de Heyning P. Voice quality change in future professional voice users after 9 months of voice training. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2004;261:1-5.
  23. Lundy DS, Roy S, Casiano RR, Evans J, Sullivan PA, Xue JW. Relationship between aerodynamic measures of glottal efficiency and stroboscopic findings in asymptomatic singing students. J Voice 2000;14:178-83.