Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology

ISSN: 1401-5439 (Print) 1651-2022 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ilog20

Work-related communicative profile of radio

broadcasters: a case study

Lady Catherine Cantor-Cutiva, Pasquale Bottalico & Eric Hunter

To cite this article: Lady Catherine Cantor-Cutiva, Pasquale Bottalico & Eric Hunter (2018):
Work-related communicative profile of radio broadcasters: a case study, Logopedics Phoniatrics
Vocology

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14015439.2018.1504983

Published online: 05 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ilog20
LOGOPEDICS PHONIATRICS VOCOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/14015439.2018.1504983

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Work-related communicative profile of radio broadcasters: a case study

Lady Catherine Cantor-Cutivaa , Pasquale Bottalicob and Eric Huntera
a
Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA; bDepartment of Speech and
Hearing Science, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Purpose: To explore the short-term effect of work-related voice use on voice function, and noise Received 4 October 2017
exposure on hearing function among radio broadcasters. Revised 11 June 2018
Method: A 1-week follow-up study with the participation of two radio broadcasters was conducted. Accepted 19 July 2018
Participants were monitored at the beginning and at the end of the working week. Premonitoring
KEYWORDS
assessment on Monday (baseline measure) and postmonitoring assessment on Friday (follow-up meas- Occupational voice users;
ure) were performed to identify short-term effects of work-related conditions on voice and hearing broadcasters; work-related
function among radio broadcasters. communication problems;
Result: Changes in fundamental frequency postmonitoring at the end of the work week may be an voice; hearing
indication of work-related vocal fatigue. Changes in the distribution and standard deviation of SPL dur-
ing the monitoring from Monday to Friday may indicate control of the vocal loudness as a strategy to
reduce vocal effort during broadcasting. During a 1-week follow-up, noise conditions during radio
broadcasting were below occupational exposure limits and without noticeable consequences on hear-
ing function.
Conclusion: The work-related communicative profile of radio broadcasting, from this pilot study, sug-
gests that although vocal demands in terms of vocal load may differ among broadcasters, the work-
related conditions of broadcasting may play a role on vocal function among these occupational voice
users. Concerning hearing function, our results indicate that occupational noise exposure represented
minimal risk for hearing problems but the consequences of long-term noise exposure on hearing
mechanisms may yet occur. Future studies with bigger sample sizes are warranted to confirm
our results.

Introduction have reported that teachers whose workplaces had high

Previous studies have reported a higher occurrence of voice
disorders among occupational voice users, partially associ-
ated with work-related conditions, such as prolonged peri-
ods of work-related voice use (vocal load) [1–3]. Voice
monitoring during working time has shown elevated voice
use among this population. It has been found that vocal
folds vibrate up to 15% of the time at work among call-center
workers [4] and up to 40% of the time among teachers [5,6].
Because for each vibration of the vocal folds, the vocal fold
mucosae experiences both shear stresses and collision forces,
the prolonged vocal fold vibration during occupational voice
use (vocal load) may lead to repeated injuries which the
body repairs through connective tissue thickening [7]. In
addition to the vocal load linked with the occupational voice
use, there are other work-related factors that have been pre-
viously associated with the occurrence of voice disorders
among occupational voice users. A significant association
between environmental factors (such as noise levels and
acoustic conditions) and self-reported voice symptoms, such
as vocal fatigue, vocal effort, hoarseness, and tired voice has
also been reported [8–12]. For example, previous studies
background noise levels had a higher likelihood of reporting
voice complaints compared with their colleagues who were
not occupationally exposed to these conditions [13,14]. A
similar relationship between background noise levels and
voice complaints has also been reported among call-center
operators [15]. It has been shown that speakers tend to raise
their vocal levels and fundamental frequency under noisy
conditions (Lombard speech) [16], which can cause higher
vocal effort and vocal fatigue [12,17–19] increasing the risk
for voice problems.
While many studies have examined the influence of
work-related factors on voice production among occupa-
tional voice users generally, few have looked at the effect
among radio broadcasters specifically. Previous research has
reported that, among occupational voice users, radio broad-
casters are among those who have higher vocal demands in
terms of voice quality, but moderate demands on vocal
load [2]. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of studies on the
occurrence and work-related factors of voice symptoms that
could impact voice quality, such as vocal fatigue. This infor-
mation is of high interest considering the high demand for
radio media. A recent survey among 9,100 participants from

CONTACT Lady Catherine Cantor-Cutiva cantorcu@msu.edu Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Michigan State University, 1026 Red
Cedar Road, Oyer Building, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
ß 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 L. C. CANTOR-CUTIVA ET AL.
selected countries worldwide reported that more than 60%
of respondents listened to the radio at least once a week [20].
Moreover, the average daily time spent per individual listening
to the radio in the United States in 2016 was 104 min [21].
This means that, on average, people spend almost 2 h per
day receiving information from a person that they just
know by voice. Although several reasons may influence the
selection of one radio station over another, voice quality is
among the most important. Therefore, radio broadcasters
have a high demand in terms of voice quality for the
performance of their occupational duties.
Additionally, since the voice is the primary tool for deliv-
ering information and hearing is the main tool for receiving
information and for adjusting the production of voice, the
breakdown of either mechanism negatively impacts the
work process of occupational voice users. Nevertheless, there
has been limited research exploring how noise exposure in
the workplace may impact the hearing of occupational voice
users in general, and specifically, among radio broadcasters.
One of the most important consequences of noise expos-
ure is noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL). NIHL is a leading
occupational disease, a major contributor to the develop-
ment of age-related hearing loss, a significant cause of dis-
ability, and a major cost to society [22]. Its first audiologic
sign is a “notching” of the audiogram at the high frequen-
cies (usually 4000 Hz) with recovery at 8000 Hz [23]. NIHL
is the result of continuous or intermittent noise exposure
during a certain period of time, and usually develops slowly
over several years. Since NIHL is the result of noise expos-
ure, several studies have been developed on the relationship
between occupational noise exposure and NIHL. Most of
these studies have focused on industry, which have resulted
in permissible exposure values (PEL) established by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
These PEL are defined as the legal limits for exposure of an
employee to a substance, agent or condition, such as loud
noise (OSHA 1910.95). For noise, OSHA’s PEL is 90 dB(A)
for all workers for an 8-h day with a 5 dB(A) exchange rate
(when the noise exposure is increased by 5 dB(A), the time
of exposure is cut in half) [24].
Regardless of this well-known standard, there are many
non-industrial occupations exposed to less noise burden, yet
without established limits, and are at risk for hearing and
other communicative problems; this is the case of radio
broadcasters [25]. For example, previous studies among
teachers, who are regular occupational voice users, have
reported mean values of noise levels in occupied classrooms
ranging from 72 dB(A) [14] to 76 dB(A) [26]. Although
according with OSHA 190.95, these values do not exceed
the permissible exposure limits as currently defined, these
noise levels inside the classrooms over time might affect the
communication process, leading to voice disorders [11,14].
Lindblad et al. [25] reported that teachers showed compar-
able results as industrial workers for speech recognition in
noise, which may suggest lesions in the inner hair cell area
due to exposure to sudden loud sounds, such as screaming
of the children. Although no previous studies on this topic
were found among radio broadcasters, these results among
teachers indicate that occupational exposure to unfavorable
conditions for communication may be linked with a higher
risk for developing voice disorders and hearing problems.
Therefore, this study was designed to answer the follow-
ing research questions: (1) Is there a short-term effect of
work-related voice use on voice function among radio
broadcasters? and (2) Is there an effect of work-related noise
exposure on hearing function among radio broadcasters? To
answer, we conducted a 1-week follow-up study with the
participation of two broadcasters. Although the sample size
is small, the results of this study can give us initial insights
on the work-related communicative profile of this occupa-
tional group.
Methods
Design and participants
This 1-week follow-up study was performed in May of 2017.
Follow-up studies (also called longitudinal, concurrent, inci-
dence, cohort, panel, prospective study) are designed to
observe an individual, group, or a population “at risk”
(exposed to a factor hypothesized to influence the occur-
rence of a given outcome) over a period of time to assess
changes in health status or health-related variables (out-
come) related with the “associated factor” (exposure) [27].
In this specific study, broadcasters (population of interest)
were followed over 1 week (follow-up period) to assess
changes on voice and hearing function (outcome) related
with occupational voice use and occupational noise exposure
(associated factor). Participants were monitored at the
beginning and at the end of their working week. Since none
of the participating broadcasters perform their radio pro-
grams during the weekends, these two point measurements
will explore, for the very first time, changes on voice func-
tion and hearing function associated with the occupational
voice use and noise exposure during one week of broadcast-
ing. After approval from the Michigan State University
Human Research Protection Program, two radio broadcast-
ers (one male and one female) from a public radio station
participated in the study. Both participants were native
speakers of American English, with no voice or hearing
problems during the week of the monitoring. The female
broadcaster (46 years old) is part of a morning news pro-
gram, which lasts for 4 h each weekday morning, while the
male broadcaster (26 years old) presents the sports news at
noon each weekday for 1 h. During the morning news, the
female broadcaster shares the show with other co-hosts;
therefore, she is not speaking all the time. During the sport
news, the male broadcaster is the main host.
Data collection procedures
Premonitoring and postmonitoring assessment
After giving written informed consent to participate in this
study, participants went under a premonitoring assessment.
This premonitoring assessment was performed with the aim
of characterizing the voice quality and hearing function

before the occupational exposure associated with radio
broadcasting. The premonitoring assessment included three
elements. Firstly, broadcasters filled out a questionnaire,
consisting of four sections: (1) nine questions on sociode-
mographics (e.g. age, gender and education), native lan-
guage, and history of hearing or speech disorders; (2) 16
questions on working conditions (e.g. days per week of
broadcasting, hours a day of broadcasting, physical condi-
tions of the workplace); (3) 13 questions on the occurrence,
severity, and frequency of voice symptoms; and (4) 17 ques-
tions on the occurrence, severity and frequency of hearing
problems. Secondly, they went under a hearing screening,
which was performed with the Audiometer MADSEN
Orbiter 922 Version 2 (Otometrics A/S, Taastrup, Denmark)
in a double wall sound isolation booth (2.5
2.75 m and
h ¼ 2 m) with a mid-frequency reverberation time (RT20)
equal to 0.05 s and a background noise equal to 20 dB(A).
Thirdly, they recorded a speech sample. The speech sample
consisted of reading the first six sentences of “The Rainbow
Passage” [28], equal to about 30 s of speaking in a conversa-
tional pitch and loudness. The speech samples were
recorded in a double wall sound isolation booth
(2.5
2.75 m and h ¼ 2 m) with a mid-frequency reverber-
ation time (RT20) equal to 0.05 s and a background noise
equal to 20 dB(A) using a M80 omnidirectional head-
mounted microphone (Glottal Enterprise, Syracuse, NY)
placed at 5 cm from their mouth, which was connected to a
TASCAM DR-40 Linear PCM Recorder (TEAC Corporation,
Tokyo, Japan). The digital recordings (44,100 Hz) were
transferred to a personal computer (PC) running Praat
Version 6.0.31 [29]. Settings for calculation of the funda-
mental frequency (Fo) in Praat were: pitch range between
70 and 450 Hz for the female broadcaster, and between 50
and 350 Hz for the male broadcaster. In addition, partici-
pants produced a sustained vowel /a/ in a conversational
pitch and loudness. The vowel was used for calculation of
the Harmonics-to-Noise ratio (HNR). HNR was included
because it is a measure that reflects the periodicity of vocal
fold vibration, and therefore, the harmonicity of the voice.
Previous research had shown that HNR is a sensitive index
of vocal function [30] and a good measure of voice qual-
ity [31,32].
After the radio shows, a postmonitoring assessment was
performed. The objective of the postmonitoring assessment
was to determine changes on voice quality and hearing
function associated with the occupational exposure to noise
and voice use during broadcasting. The postmonitoring
assessment included three elements. First, the subjects were
asked to complete a reduced survey consisting of two sec-
tions: (1) four questions on the presence, type, and severity
of voice symptoms after the show; and (2) eight questions
on the presence, type, and severity of hearing problems after
the show. Second, a hearing screening was administered.
Third, a final recording of a speech sample (Rainbow pas-
sage) and the sustained vowel /a/ was made.
Since the broadcasters do not perform their radio
shows during the weekends, the premonitoring assessment
on Monday was considered the baseline measurement at
LOGOPEDICS PHONIATRICS VOCOLOGY 3
the lowest short-term occupational exposure (postweekend
recovery) [33]. Therefore, the voice quality parameters
and hearing thresholds identified during this assessment
were compared with postmonitoring measurements. The
purpose of this comparison was twofold: (1) to character-
ize changes on voice quality associated with the occupa-
tional voice use during radio broadcasting, and (2) to
identify variations on the hearing thresholds associated
with the occupational noise exposure during radio
broadcasting.
Occupational voice monitoring
After the premonitoring assessment, the broadcasters were
outfitted with an Ambulatory Phonation Monitor (APM,
model 3200 by Kaypentax; Montvale, NJ) before starting
their radio shows. The radio broadcasters were monitored
during the whole duration of the shows and were
instructed to behave during their radio shows as normally
as possible. The APM, which has been designed in such a
way that allows the participants to walk and move freely
during their occupational monitoring, provides an estima-
tion of the individual’s vocal sound pressure levels (SPLs)
at a fixed distance of 15 cm from the speaker
s mouth after
a calibration with a reference microphone. Device calibra-
tion, data handling, and resulting metrics of the calibration
process were built into the APM software; APM manufac-
turer instructions for the calibration were followed. The
occupational voice monitoring was carried out using an
accelerometer, which measures the vibrations that occur
during phonation, mounted on a silicone pad and placed
at the jugular notch using surgical adhesive. The vocal
parameters were estimated using an acquisition device that
processed the signal into frames of 50 ms. The phonation
time percentage (Dt%) is obtained through a procedure
that allows the separation of the voiced and unvoiced
frames. The voicing frames were determined using two dif-
ferent criteria: (1) a lower bound of 30 Hz and an upper
bound of 400 Hz for the fundamental frequency, (2) and a
voicing threshold (equal to 0.45 relative to the global max-
imum amplitude) and silence threshold (equal to 0.03 rela-
tive to the global maximum amplitude). A frame was rated
as unvoiced if it had an intensity below the voicing thresh-
old or a local peak below the silence threshold. The funda-
mental frequency (Fo) is extracted from the voiced frames
with a procedure that is based on an autocorrelation algo-
rithm. The autocorrelation analysis computes the correl-
ation between a signal and a delayed copy of the same
signal at delays corresponding to the minimum and max-
imum expected fundamental periods [34]. This method is
more accurate, noise-resistant, and robust than other meth-
ods based on the cepstrum or combs [35].
Occupational noise monitoring
Noise exposure among broadcasters may have two sources:
(1) environmental noise inside the radio studio, and (2)
noise from the headphones during broadcasting.
Occupational noise exposure during this study (assessed
4 L. C. CANTOR-CUTIVA ET AL.
Figure 1. Measurement setup of occupational noise exposure during broadcasting.
Figure 2. Phonation time percentage of participating broadcasters during their
radio shows on Monday and Friday.
according to OSHA Standard 1910.95) was determined by
two techniques. The environmental noise inside the radio
studio was determined by means of an omnidirectional
microphone (M2211, NTi Audio, Tigards, OR) placed at
around 70 cm from the position of the broadcaster during
broadcasting. The noise exposure produced by means of the
headphones were assessed using the Manikin or Head and
Torso Simulator (HATS) technique according with the ISO
11904-2 [36]. The HATS model used was the KEMAR
HATS 45BC-2 by G.R.A.S.S. Sound & Vibration (Holte,
Denmark). The HATS transfer function makes it possible to
transform the noise level measured within the ear of the
manikin into an equivalent level. To measure the noise
delivered by the headset while the broadcaster was working,
the input line for the broadcaster’s headset was split into
two equivalent input lines. Two headsets of the same model
were connected to the input lines, the first one worn by the
broadcaster and the second one by the HATS. This ensured
that the broadcaster and the HATS were exposed to the
same levels even when the headset volume was modified
(Figure 1). The noise signals acquired by the microphone
M2111 (NTI Audio) and the ears of the HATS (G.R.A.S.S.),
were analyzed with the XL2 Analyzer (NTI Audio) to obtain
the A-weighted equivalent level.
Statistical analysis
All analyses were performed by means of SPSS 21
(IBM Corporation, New York, NY). First, we used the
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test to assess the distribution of fun-
damental frequency and vocal SPLs before, during, and after
the monitoring. None of the variables were normally distrib-
uted (p ¼ .00). Second, bean plots were drawn to compare
the distribution of fundamental frequency before, during,
and after the monitoring for both broadcasters. The bean
plot was chosen because it is an uncomplicated way to com-
pare distributions by showing the frequency and density of
the occurrences/observations. Each small line/dot in the
bean plot represents one observation. The density shape
used is a polygon given by a normal density trace and its
mirrored version [37]. Third, histograms were used to com-
pare distribution of vocal SPLs during the monitoring. For
the vocal SPLs, histograms were better than the bean plots
due the density proportion of the data.
Results
Occupational voice use during broadcasting
Three parameters were defined to measure the occupational
voice use during broadcasting. First, phonation time per-
centage (Dt%) was used to represent the time during which
the vocal folds vibrated (voicing time) over the total time of
occupational monitoring. Second, fundamental frequency
(Fo) was used to represent the average number of collision
per second between the vocal folds. Third, vocal SPL was
 LOGOPEDICS PHONIATRICS VOCOLOGY 5

Figure 3. Fundamental frequency of the female broadcaster during radio shows on Monday and Friday.

Figure 4. Vocal sound pressure levels of the female broadcaster during radio shows on Monday and Friday.

used to represent the average pressure level emitted by the
participant at 15 cm from the mouth. Occupational monitor-
ing lasted during the total duration of the radio shows. The
female broadcaster
s news program was 4 h (Monday and
Friday), and the male broadcaster’s sports news program
was 1 h (Monday and Friday).
Figure 2 shows the occupational Dt% for the participat-
ing broadcasters during their radio shows on Monday and
Friday. As shown in the figure, the male radio broadcaster
has a higher vocal load (around 38% on Monday and 42%
on Friday) compared with his female colleague (around 14%
on Monday and 12% on Friday). The results indicate that
during the 1-h show, the male radio broadcaster has a Dt%
equivalent to the production of a “monologue”, speaking for
almost the entire one-hour long broadcast; previous studies
have reported Dt% from males reading a text to be between
39 and 54% [38]. In contrast, the female radio broadcaster
has a lower vocal load during the 4-h show.
Figure 3 shows the female broadcaster fundamental fre-
quency (Fo) during the occupational monitoring plotted in
bean plots. The female broadcaster had a slightly lower fun-
damental frequency mean during the monitoring on Friday
(Fo ¼ 160 Hz, SD ¼ 38 Hz) compared with the monitoring
on Monday (Fo ¼ 171 Hz, SD ¼ 56 Hz). The bean plots show
a higher density of low Fo values (below 100 Hz) and high
Fo values (above 230 Hz) during the monitoring of Monday
compared with the monitoring on Friday (which is also
reflected in the Fo SD). Therefore, it seems likely that the
6 L. C. CANTOR-CUTIVA ET AL.

Figure 5. Fundamental frequency of the male broadcaster during radio shows on Monday and Friday.

Figure 6. Vocal sound pressure levels of the male broadcaster during radio shows on Monday and Friday.

female broadcaster was producing more intonation changes
during her monitoring on Monday compared with Friday.
Figure 4 shows female broadcaster vocal SPLs during the
occupational monitoring plotted in histograms. As shown in
the figure, although difference in mean SPL from Monday
(SPL ¼ 82 dB, SD ¼ 14 dB) to Friday (SPL ¼ 83 dB, SD ¼ 18 dB)
was just 1 dB, distributions are significantly different. On
Monday, the female broadcaster had a higher peak around
80 dB, whereas, on Friday, the distribution shows more dis-
persion without visible peaks.
Figure 5 shows the bean plots for Fo during the occupa-
tional monitoring of the male broadcaster. As shown on the
figure, Fo on Friday is slightly lower (Fo ¼ 152 Hz, SD ¼ 45 Hz)
compared with Monday (Fo ¼ 161 Hz, SD ¼ 47 Hz). However,
in this case the density distributions are similar. Therefore, it
seems likely that the male broadcaster used his voice in a simi-
lar way during both monitoring sessions.
Figure 6 shows the histograms of the male broadcaster
vocal SPLs during the occupational monitoring. The male
broadcaster had lower SPL on Friday (SPL ¼ 79 dB, SD ¼ 13 dB)
compared with Monday (SPL ¼ 86 dB, SD ¼ 12 dB). The fig-
ure shows that the highest peak of the distribution is slightly
skewed to the right on Monday compared with Friday. In
addition, there is bigger asymmetry to the right in the SPL
values recorded during the monitoring on Friday compared
with Monday.

Figure 7. Fundamental frequency of female and male broadcasters during the baseline (premonitoring Monday) and follow-up (post-monitoring Friday) measures.
The voice production corresponds to about 30 s of reading.
Short-term effect of radio broadcasting on
voice function
To assess short-term effects of broadcasting on voice func-
tion among radio broadcasters, we compared the informa-
tion collected during the premonitoring assessment on
Monday (baseline) with the postmonitoring assessment on
Friday (follow-up). Participating broadcasters did not report
any current voice symptoms (hoarseness, weak voice, voice
loss, breathiness, strained voice, tired voice, pain in throat,
itchy sensation, dry throat) either at the baseline or at the
follow-up.
Concerning the short-term effect of occupational voice
use on voice function, the results show a tendency to
increase the fundamental frequency (Fo). As shown in
Figure 7, the male broadcaster had an increase of about
LOGOPEDICS PHONIATRICS VOCOLOGY 7
16 Hz (115 Hz on premonitoring Monday, and 131 Hz on
postmonitoring Friday), whereas the female broadcaster had
an increase of about 7 Hz (140 Hz on premonitoring
Monday, and 147 Hz on postmonitoring Friday).
Further, Figure 8 shows that there is a different tendency
between the male and the female broadcasters on the HNR.
The male broadcaster has a decrease in the HNR in the sus-
tained vowel /a/ recorded at the end of the week (20 dB)
compared to the beginning of the week (22 dB). On the con-
trary, the female broadcaster has an increase in the HNR in
the sustained vowel /a/ recorded at the end of the week
(25.5 dB) compared to the beginning of the week (17.6 dB).
Table 1 shows occupational noise levels, Fo, and SPL
during broadcasting. In the male broadcaster, Fo, SPL, and
8 L. C. CANTOR-CUTIVA ET AL.
Figure 8. Harmonics-to-Noise ratio of female and male broadcasters during the
baseline (premonitoring Monday) and follow-up (postmonitoring Friday) meas-
ures. The voice production corresponds to the sustained production of the
vowel/a/.
occupational noise exposure are higher on Monday com-
pared with Friday. In the case of the female broadcaster,
although occupational noise levels during both monitoring
(Monday and Friday) were similar, Fo is higher on Monday
compared with Friday.
Occupational noise exposure during broadcasting
As shown in Table 1, noise levels during radio broadcasting
were below Occupational Exposure Limits. However, noise
levels were higher during broadcasting of the sports show
with the male broadcaster than during the morning news
with the female broadcaster. Figures 9 and 10 show the
noise exposure levels during the total duration of the moni-
toring of the female and male radio broadcasters.
Short-term effect of noise exposure during radio
broadcasting on hearing function
The evaluation of the effect of radio broadcasting on hear-
ing function was performed by comparing the information
collected during the premonitoring assessment on Monday
(baseline) with the postmonitoring assessment on Friday
(follow-up). Neither the female broadcaster nor the male
broadcaster reported any current hearing problem (ringing
in ears, itchy sensation, pain in ears, difficulty hearing, or
understanding spoken communication) at the baseline or at
the follow-up.
No significant changes in the hearing thresholds were
observed in the broadcasters after broadcasting. As shown
in Figure 11, while the female broadcaster had a mild
decrease in hearing threshold level in the frequency
8000 Hz, her pure tone average (500–1000–2000 Hz, PTA)
were under 20 dB, which is considered within normal limits.
Figure 12 shows that the male broadcaster results during the
1-week follow-up were also within normal limits.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to explore the short-term effect
of work-related voice use on voice function, and noise
exposure on hearing function among radio broadcasters. For
the two broadcasters studied, three main results were found.
First, changes in fundamental frequency postmonitoring at
the end of the work week may be an indication of work-
related vocal fatigue. Second, changes in the distribution
and standard deviation of SPL during the monitoring on
Friday compared with Monday may be an indication of
broadcasters’ control of their vocal loudness as a strategy to
reduce vocal effort during broadcasting. Third, during a
1-week follow-up, noise conditions during radio broadcast-
ing were below the PELs established by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) [24], and without
consequences on hearing function.
Regarding voice production during broadcasting (occupa-
tional voice use), one interesting finding was the change on
the distribution of the broadcasters’ vocal SPLs on Friday
compared with Monday. The distribution of SPL of the
female broadcaster changed from Monday to Friday, with a
more disperse distribution on Friday. The results also show
higher standard deviation on Friday (SPL SD¼ 18 dB) com-
pared with Monday (SPL SD¼ 14 dB). The male broadcaster
had the highest peak of the distribution is slightly skewed to
the right on Monday compared with Friday (Figure 6), and
slightly higher standard deviation on Friday (SPL
SD ¼ 13 dB) compared with Monday (SPL SD ¼ 12 dB).
Previous studies have reported that teachers, who are regu-
lar voice users, with higher standard deviations were less
likely to report voice complaints [6]. This change in the dis-
tribution of SPL and increase in the standard deviation may
be an indication of control of the vocal loudness as a strat-
egy to reduce vocal effort during broadcasting. Nevertheless,
future research is needed to confirm these findings.
The results on phonation time percentage (Dt%) showed
a high variability between the two participating broadcast-
ers. The mean Dt% during the follow-up was 39.5% for the
male broadcaster, compared to 12.5% for the female broad-
caster. The phonation time percentage of the male broad-
caster is considerably higher compared with the female
broadcaster, and compared with previous studies among
call-center operators that reported phonation time percent-
age of 14.7% [4]. It is almost certain that the reason for
this higher phonation time percentage of the male broad-
caster is that his vocal production is almost entirely a
“monologue” speaking style during the 1-h long sports
show, compared to the female’s shared broadcast.
Therefore, his vocal demands are high not just in terms of
vocal quality but also in terms of vocal load. The Dt% of
the female radio broadcaster suggests a moderate work-
related vocal demand in terms of vocal load.
As shown in Figures 3 and 5, there was a slight decrease
in fundamental frequency (Fo) during the occupational
voice monitoring on Friday compared with the monitoring
on Monday for both broadcasters. This decrease may be an
indication of a more hypofunctional occupational voice use
towards the end of the week [39], as a strategy to reduce
vocal effort during broadcasting. Nevertheless, future studies
with bigger sample sizes and higher number of repeated
measures are needed to corroborate this hypothesis. The
 LOGOPEDICS PHONIATRICS VOCOLOGY 9

Table 1. Noise level exposure and occupational voice use of two broadcasters during 1-week fol-
low-up.
Broadcaster Weekday Noise level Fo SPL Duration of the exposure
Male Monday 96 dBA 161 Hz (47 Hz) 86 dB (12 dB) 1-h day
Friday 89 dBA 152 Hz (45 Hz) 79 dB (13 dB) 1-h day
Female Monday 75 dBA 171 Hz (56 Hz) 83 dB (14 dB) 4-h day
Friday 76 dBA 160 Hz (38 Hz) 83 dB (18 dB) 4-h day

Figure 9. Background noise levels (dB(A)) for 4-h radio shows on Monday and Friday of the female broadcaster.
10 L. C. CANTOR-CUTIVA ET AL.
Figure 10. Background noise levels (dB(A)) for 1-h radio shows on Monday and Friday of the male broadcaster.
mean SPL during one-week of monitoring was about 83 dB
for both broadcasters. However, we can observe a different
distribution of SPL between the two broadcasters, especially
on Friday. This finding reflects the different demands on
voice production that radio broadcasting requires.
Our results on the short-term effect of radio broadcasting
on voice production indicate a tendency to slightly increase
the fundamental frequency (Fo) in the speech sample (read-
ing) recorded at the end of the week (maximal work-related
voice use) compared with the beginning of the work week
(pre- work-related voice use). Previous research has sug-
gested that increased Fo after vocal loading tasks may be an
indication of vocal fatigue [18,40–42]. From the physio-
logical point of view, it has been hypothesized that when a
speaker experiences vocal loading, the thyroarytenoid (TA)
becomes fatigued, which inhibits maintaining a lower pitch,
and a greater level of fatigue may eventually be the result [40].
A second hypothesis is that higher Fo after vocal loading
tasks may reflect an increased muscle tonus as an adaptation
to loading [43,44].
 LOGOPEDICS PHONIATRICS VOCOLOGY 11

Figure 11. Audiograms of the female broadcaster before and after broadcasting on Monday and Friday. Upper audiograms correspond to Monday. Lower audio-
grams correspond to Friday. Left audiograms correspond to premonitoring assessment. Right audiograms correspond to postmonitoring assessment. Circle corre-
sponds to right ear. “X” corresponds to left ear.

Figure 12. Audiograms of the male broadcaster before and after broadcasting on Monday and Friday. Upper audiograms correspond to Monday. Lower audio-
grams correspond to Friday. Left audiograms correspond to premonitoring assessment. Right audiograms correspond to postmonitoring assessment. Circle corre-
sponds to right ear. “X” corresponds to left ear.

Since no previous studies were found on the short-term
effect of radio broadcasting on voice production among
broadcasters, it is not possible to compare our results.
Nevertheless, our findings are in line with previous results
reported among other occupational voice users [15,43].
Among teachers, Laukkanen et al. [43] reported a signifi-
cantly higher fundamental frequency (around 6 Hz) postmo-
nitoring of one working day. Comparable results have also
been reported among call-center workers who had signifi-
cantly higher Fo (around 5 Hz) at the end of the working
day compared with the beginning of the day. Therefore, it is
likely that although radio broadcasters have lower vocal
demand in terms of vocal load compared with other occu-
pational voice users such as teachers or call center workers
[2], the high demand in terms of voice quality would result
in similar patterns of voice production. These adjustments
on the voice production may be linked with the occurrence
of work-related vocal fatigue.
In the postmonitoring voice assessment at the end of the
week, we found a different tendency between the male and
the female broadcasters on the HNR. The male broadcaster
has a decrease in the HNR in the sustained vowel /a/
12 L. C. CANTOR-CUTIVA ET AL.
recorded at the end of the week compared to the beginning
of the week. On the contrary, the female broadcaster has an
increase in the HNR in the sustained vowel/a/recorded at
the end of the week compared to the beginning of the week.
The results on the relation between HNR and vocal loading
are contradictory in the literature. Some studies suggest no
changes on HNR after vocal loading tasks [45], whereas
other studies report a decrease in HNR after 1 h of constant
loud reading [41]. Futures studies are needed to clarify
this relation.
An interesting result in this study was the low values for
Fo for the female broadcaster (171 Hz on Monday, and
160 Hz on Friday). Previous researches have reported that
broadcasters, particularly females, use a low-pitched voice in
broadcasting to convey authority and confidence [46,47]. It
has also been reported that too high pitch during broadcast-
ing compared with speaker
s optimal pitch may result in ten-
sion. Therefore, one possible explanation is that the female
broadcaster produces a lower-pitch voice during her show,
having naturally a low-pitch conversational voice. It seems
likely that, among radio broadcasters, the slightly increased
Fo at the end of the working week during the follow-up
may be an indication of vocal fatigue due to the occupa-
tional voice use. Future studies with a longer follow-up time
are suggested in order to explore the natural course of vocal
fatigue associated with radio broadcasting.
Our results on the work-related noise exposure during
broadcasting indicate that noise levels during radio broad-
casting were below the national and international standards.
Moreover, no significant changes in the hearing thresholds
were identified. Comparing these results with previous
research of other occupational voice users, we found that
our results are in line with studies that included call-center
workers [48,49]. For example, Trompette et al. [48] found
that 110 out of 117 call-center workers were exposed to
noise levels (Leq,8h) under 80 dB(A) considering minimal
risk for hearing problems. Similar results were reported by
Patel et al. [49] who found that the noise exposure of 150
call-center workers were unlikely to exceed the 85 dB(A)
and, therefore, resulted in a minimal risk of hearing prob-
lems. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that con-
stant, even minimal, noise exposure may still have long-
term consequences [50]. Exposure to moderate-loud noise
can result in a temporary and/or permanent threshold shift.
While a temporary threshold shift may fully recover within
24–48 h [51], a previous study on mice found that tempor-
ary threshold shift may be associated with an increased
nerve degeneration and accelerated age-related hearing
loss [52]. Further, permanent threshold shift is irreversible.
Therefore, noise exposure consequences on hearing mecha-
nisms may occur after years of moderate to loud noise
exposure. In this study, although the participating broad-
casters were occupationally exposed to noise levels below
the standards, and they did not present a shift on their
hearing thresholds, the background noise levels during
broadcasting were higher than what is recommended for
environments where communication is important [53], and
also higher than the change-point for self-reported
discomfort reported in previous research [54]. For this rea-
son, we recommend a conservative approach, and perform-
ing an annual hearing assessment among these radio
broadcasters in order to monitor their hearing function and
prevent future hearing problems.
On the other hand, occupational voice use under high
noisy conditions may lead to overuse or misuse of the voice,
and therefore to develop voice disorders [2]. In the presence
of noise, the voice is masked, and its production should be
modified to guarantee the success of the communication
process. The vocal response by a talker to the background
noise conditions of a space is called Lombard effect [16,55].
Among occupational voice users, a Swedish study in 10 day-
care centers found that working under mean background
noise levels of 76 dB(A) caused teachers to speak on average
9.1 dB louder and with higher mean Fo during work as
compared to the baseline [56]. Therefore, although our
results suggest that noise levels during radio broadcasting
were below the national and international standards, occu-
pational voice use under these background noise conditions
may cause higher vocal effort, and as consequence vocal
fatigue or other voice disorders may appear. Future studies
with bigger sample sizes are needed to confirm our results.
The main limitation of this study was the very small
sample size that prevents the generalization of our results to
the population of radio broadcasters, as well as types of
broadcasts (e.g. news, sports, radio), characteristics of
broadcasters (gender, age) specifically, and effect of individ-
ual intra-variability on the changes of Fo and vocal SPL. For
this reason, future research is planned to increase the sam-
ple size in order to further explore these issues.
Additionally, while it appears broadcasters in this prelimin-
ary study may not be in highly noise-exposed groups, it is
nevertheless important to continue an examination of this
issue. Additional studies should also be designed to explore
the use of headphones during radio broadcasting (and
potentially other occupations). Its use may increase the risk
to be exposed to “acoustic shock” (defined as the sudden
increase in the noise transmitted by the headphones due to
different causes [48]), which can lead to symptoms like ear
pain, tinnitus, and headache, usually without hearing loss
[57]. Previous research has studied acoustic shock among
call-center workers [48,57] but no studies were found for
radio broadcasters. In addition, since voice production is a
multifactorial process, it is likely that the reported changes
on voice parameters may be also associated with other indi-
vidual factors, such as “natural” voice changes during the
day. Future research is advisable to define the changes on
voice parameters during a day without occupational voice
use among broadcasters. Another limitation is the lack of
information on the participants’ non-occupational voice use.
Since, participating broadcasters did not register their non-
occupational voice use during the week of the monitoring, it
is difficult to define in which proportion voice and hearing
function changes were consequence of the work-related
exposure. Nevertheless, to the best of the authors know-
ledge, participating broadcasters did not have high vocal

load on nonoccupational settings during the week of
the monitoring.
Conclusion
The work-related communicative profile of radio broadcast-
ing indicates that although vocal demands in terms of vocal
load may differ among broadcasters, the work-related condi-
tions of broadcasting may play a role in vocal function
among these occupational voice users. Concerning the hear-
ing function, our results indicate that occupational noise
exposure be represented minimal risk for hearing problems
but the consequences of long-term noise exposure on hear-
ing mechanisms may yet occur. Future studies with bigger
sample sizes are warranted to confirm our results.
Acknowledgements
The authors report no conflicts of interest. Thank you to the subjects
who participated in this study. The authors warmly thank Peter Whorf
for his support in the development of this research. Thanks to Dr.
Kristine Tanner of Brigham Young University for the use of the
Ambulatory Phonation Monitor.
Declaration of interest
The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the
paper. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does
not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes
of Health.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
The research reported in this publication was supported by the
National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders of
the National Institutes of Health under Award Number
5R01DC01231505.
Notes on contributors
Lady Catherine Cantor-Cutiva, Pasquale Bottalico and Eric Hunter
participated in the design of the study, data collection, data analysis,
and writing of the paper.
ORCID
Lady Catherine Cantor-Cutiva https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
4530-4345
Eric Hunter http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5571-464X
References
1. Vilkman E. Occupational safety and health aspects of voice and
speech professions. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2004;56:220–253.
LOGOPEDICS PHONIATRICS VOCOLOGY 13
2. Vilkman E. Voice problems at work: a challenge for occupa-
tional safety and health arrangement. Folia Phoniatr Logop.
2000;52:120–125.
3. Verdolini K, Ramig LO. Review: occupational risks for voice
problems. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2001;26:37–46.
4. Cantarella G, Iofrida E, Boria P, et al. Ambulatory phonation
monitoring in a sample of 92 call center operators. J Voice.
2014;28:393.e1–393.e6.
5. Rantala L, Haataja K, Vilkman E, et al. Practical arrangements
and methods in the field examination and speaking style analysis
of professional voice users. Scand J Log Phon. 1994;19:43–54.
6. Cantor Cutiva LC, Puglisi G, Astolfi A, et al. Four-day follow-up
study on the self-reported voice condition and noise condition
of teachers: relationship between vocal parameters and classroom
acoustics. J Voice. 2017;31:120.e1–120.e8.
7. Gray S. Basement membrane zone injury in vocal nodules. In:
Gauffin J, Hammarberg B, editors. Vocal fold physiology. San
Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc; 1991. p. 21–27.
8. Bottalico P, Graetzer S, Hunter E. Effects of voice style, noise
level, and acoustic feedback on objective and subjective voice
evaluations. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015;138:EL498–EL503.
9. Cantor Cutiva LC, Vogel I, Burdorf A. Voice disorders in teach-
ers and their associations with work-related factors: a systematic
review. J Commun Disord. 2013;46:143–155.
10. Vilkman E. Occupational risk factors and voice disorders.
Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 1996;21:137–141.
11. Cantor Cutiva LC, Burdorf A. Work-related determinants of
voice complaints among school workers: an eleven-month fol-
low-up study. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2016;25:590–597.
12. Bottalico P, Graetzer S, Hunter E. Effects of speech style, room
acoustics, and vocal fatigue on vocal effort. J Acoust Soc Am.
2016;139:2870–2879.
13. de Medeiros AM, Barreto SM, Assunç~ao AA.
Voice disorders
(dysphonia) in public school female teachers working in Belo
Horizonte: prevalence and associated factors. J Voice. 2008;22:
676–687.
14. Cantor Cutiva LC, Burdorf A. Effects of noise and acoustics in
schools on vocal health in teachers. Noise Health. 2015;17:17–22.
15. Lehto L, Laaksonen L, Vilkman E, et al. Changes in objective
acoustic measurements and subjective voice complaints in call
center customer-service advisors during one working day. J
Voice. 2008;22:164–177.
16. Brumm H, Zollinger SA. The evolution of the Lombard effect:
100 years of psychoacoustic research. Behaviour. 2011;148:
1173–1198.
17. Lane H, Tranel B. The Lombard sign and the role of hearing in
speech. J Speech Hear Res. 1971;14:677–709.
18. Bottalico P. Speech adjustments for room acoustics and their
effects on vocal effort. J Voice. 2017;31:392.e1–392.e12.
19. Bouserhal RE, Macdonald EN, Falk TH, et al. Variations in voice
level and fundamental frequency with changing background
noise level and talker-to-listener distance while wearing hearing
protectors: a pilot study. Int J Audiol. 2016;55:S13–S20.
20. Ofcom. Audio content consumption in selected countries world-
wide 2016, by device. Which of the following do you do at least
once a week?: In: Statista – The Statistics Portal; n.d. New York
(NY): Statista Inc. [August 25, 2017]; Available from: https://
www.statista.com/statistics/198799/weekly-listening-to-the-radio-
music-on-a-hi-fi-in-selected-countries/.
21. Zenith N. Average daily time spent listening to the radio per
individual in the United States from 2010 to 2018 (in minutes).
Statista – The Statistics Portal. New York (NY): Statista Inc.
[August 25, 2017]; Available from: https://www.statista.com/sta-
tistics/186897/average-radio-use-per-person-in-the-us-since-
2002/.
22. Lynch E, Kil J. Compounds for the prevention and treatment of
noise-induced hearing loss. Drug Discov Today. 2005;10:
1291–1298.
23. McBride D, Williams S. Audiometric notch as a sign of noise
induced hearing loss. Occup Environ Med. 2001;58:46–51.
14 L. C. CANTOR-CUTIVA ET AL.
24. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Occupational
noise exposure; Occupational Safety and Health Standards
Occupational Health and Environmental Control. Washington
(DC): Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(Department of Labor); 2000.
25. Lindblad A, Rosenhall U, Olofsson Å, et al. Tinnitus and other
auditory problems–occupational noise exposure below risk limits
may cause inner ear dysfunction. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e97377.
26. Chatzakis N, Karatzanis A, Helidoni M, et al. Excessive noise
levels are noted in kindergarten classrooms in the island of
Crete. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;271:483–487.
27. Rothman KJ. Epidemiology. An introduction. New York: Oxford
University Press; 2002.
28. Fairbanks G. The Rainbow passage. In: Fairbanks G, editor.
Voice and articulation drillbook. New York: Harper & Row;
1960. p. 127.
29. Boersma P, Weenink D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer
(Version 6.0.31). 2017.
30. Ferrand CT. Harmonics-to-noise ratio: an index of vocal aging. J
Voice. 2002;16:480–487.
31. Yumoto E, Gould WJ, Baer T. Harmonics-to-noise ratio as an
index of the degree of hoarseness. J Acoust Soc Am.
1982;71:1544–1550.
32. Yumoto E, Sasaki Y, Okamura H. Harmonics-to-noise ratio and
psychophysical measurement of the degree of hoarseness. J
Speech Hear Res. 1984;27:2–6.
33. Hunter EJ, Titze IR. Quantifying vocal fatigue recovery: dynamic
vocal recovery trajectories after a vocal loading exercise. Ann
Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2009;118:449–460.
34. Hillenbrand JM. Acoustic analysis of voice: a tutorial. Perspect
Speech Sci Orofac Disord. 2011;21:31–43.
35. Boersma P, editor. Accurate short-term analysis of the funda-
mental frequency and the harmonics-to-noise ratio of a sampled
sound. Proceedings of the institute of phonetic sciences.
Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam; 1993.
36. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 11904-2:
determination of sound immission from sound sources placed
close to the ear – part 2: technique using a manikin. Geneva:
International Organization for Standardization; 2004. p. 16.
37. Kampstra P. Beanplot: a boxplot alternative for visual compari-
son of distributions. J Stat Softw. 2008;28(1):1–9.
38. Titze I, Svec J, Popolo P. Vocal dose measures: quantifying accu-
mulated vibration exposure in vocal fold tissues. J Speech Lang
Hear Res. 2003;46:919–932.
39. Novak A, Dlouha O, Capkova B, et al. Voice fatigue after theater
performance in actors. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 1991;43:74–78.
40. Stemple JC, Stanley J, Lee L. Objective measures of voice pro-
duction in normal subjects following prolonged voice use. J
Voice. 1995;9:127–133.
41. Gelfer MP, Andrews ML, Schmidt CP. Effects of prolonged loud
reading on selected measures of vocal function in trained and
untrained singers. J Voice. 1991;5:158–167.
42. Kelchner LN, Lee L, Stemple JC. Laryngeal function and vocal
fatigue after prolonged reading in individuals with unilateral
vocal fold paralysis. J Voice. 2003;17:513–528.
43. Laukkanen A, Ilom€aki I, Lepp€anen K, et al. Acoustic measures
and self-reports of vocal fatigue by female teachers. J Voice.
2008;22:283–289.
44. Remacle A, Garnier M, Gerber S, et al. Vocal change patterns
during a teaching day: Inter-and intra-subject variability. J
Voice. 2017;32(1):57–63.
45. Rajasudhakar R, Savithri S. Effects of teaching and voice rest on
acoustic voice characteristics of female primary school teachers.
JAIISH. 2010;29:198–203.
46. Cohler DK. Broadcast journalism: a guide for the presentation
of radio and television news. Englewood Cliff: Prentice Hall;
1985.
47. Koufman JA, Blalock PD. Vocal fatigue and dysphonia in the
professional voice user: Bogart-bacall syndrome. Laryngoscope.
1988;98:493–498.
48. Trompette N, Chatillon J. Survey of noise exposure and back-
ground noise in call centers using headphones. J Occup Environ
Hyg. 2012;9:381–386.
49. Patel JA, Broughton K. Assessment of the noise exposure of call
centre operators. Ann Occup Hyg. 2002;46:653–661.
50. Hong O, Kerr MJ, Poling GL, et al. Understanding and prevent-
ing noise-induced hearing loss. Dis Mon. 2013;59:110–118.
51. Durch JS, Joellenbeck LM, Humes LE. Noise and military ser-
vice: implications for hearing loss and tinnitus. Washington
(DC): National Academies Press; 2006.
52. Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Adding insult to injury: cochlear
nerve degeneration after “temporary” noise-induced hearing loss.
J Neurosci. 2009;29:14077–14085.
53. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/TR 3352.
Acoustics – Assessment of noise with respect to its effect on the
intelligibility of speech. Geneve: International Organization for
Standardization; 1974.
54. Bottalico P, Ipsaro Passione I, Graetzer S, et al. Evaluation of the
starting point of the Lombard effect. Acta Acust United Acust.
2017;103:169–172.
55. Lombard E. Le signe de I’elevation de la voix. Annals Maladiers
Oreille. Larynx, Nez Pharynx. 1911;37:101–119.
56. S€odersten M, Granqvist S, Hammarberg B, et al. Vocal behavior
and vocal loading factors for preschool teachers at work studied
with binaural DAT recordings. J Voice. 2002;16:356–371.
57. Westcott M. Acoustic shock injury (ASI). Acta Otolaryngol
Suppl. 2006;126:54–58.