On the Voice: Learning Science Applied to Voice

Training: The Value of Being "In the Moment"

Verdolini, Katherine . Choral Journal ; Lawton, Okla.  Tomo 42, N.º 7,  (Feb 2002): 47-51.

Enlace de documentos de ProQuest

RESUMEN (ABSTRACT)
Addresses some of the central principles of perceptual-motor learning and gives examples of how they may apply
to voice instruction where possible. Discusses five principles of motor learning: (1) it belongs to a type of learning
that is distinct from "book learning"; (2) it belongs to a type of learning and memory that occurs without
awareness; (3) it appears to require attention to sensory information; (4) it is enhanced by leaner effort; and (5) it
does not involve "trying."

TEXTO COMPLETO
Katherine Verdolini
Sharon Hansen(EDITOR)
Over the past decades, we have learned much about the physiology, biomechanics, and acoustics of voice
production (see for example, The Journal of the Acoustic Society of America; Journal of Voice ). In some
conservatories, voice science is now an integral part of voice pedagogy coursework. Voice trainers who have kept
informed about the new developments are increasingly confident about their own knowledge, they bring to the
studio, rehearsal room, or clinic.
Unfortunately, learning science has not been applied as systematically to voice training as the physical sciences
have been. This situation is somewhat paradoxical because learning stands at the core of what we do as voice
teachers. Neuromuscular change is the end concern of our intervention.
This brief essay, will address some of the central principles of perceptual-motor learning, and give examples of
how they may apply to voice instruction where possible. The most important principles will be highlighted; further
discussion of these and others can be found in more extensive review articles (for example, Verdolini, 1997;
Verdolini &Lee, in press). 1 A disclaimer is, the principles discussed here have been researched primarily in hand-
eye coordination or even verbal domains. To date, only a few studies have been conducted on motor learning in
voice. However, there is no reason to think that the principles found for other physical skills do not apply to voice
as well. For now, awaiting experimental confirmation, we will assume that they do.
Principle #1: Motor Learning Belongs to a Type of Learning That is Distinct From ''Book Learning.''
There is extensive experimental evidence that humans demonstrate at least
1
K. Verdolini, (1997). Principles of skill acquisition. Implications for voice training. In M. Hampton &B.Acker, (Eds.),
The vocal vision. Views on Voice (pp. 65-80). New York: Applause.

p.47

two types of learning and memory. One is called ''declarative'' or ''explicit'' memory; 2 it refers to the conscious
recollection of earlier events. This type of learning and memory depends on the hippocampus and amygdala and
certain parts of the thalamus, and is impaired with anterograde amnesia (e.g. Damasio, 1989; Milner, 1962; Zola-

PDF GENERADO POR PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 7

Morgan, Squire, &Mishkin, 1982). 2 , 3 , 4 The other type of learning and memory is called ''procedural'' or ''implicit''
memory. 5 This phenomenon is seen by performance changes following practice or exposure which learners do not
necessarily remember. It appears to govern perceptual-motor skill acquisition, classical conditioning, and a
phenomenon called ''priming'' (improved performance for specific stimuli which subjects do not remember, e.g.
identification of rapidly presented words that were previously studied). Procedural (implicit) memory does not
depend on the hippocampus or amygdala, and is characteristically unimpaired in amnesia.
The interesting point for us is that procedural or implicit memory (which I will call ''implicit'' memory from here out)
not only has a different neuroanatomical substrate from declarative or explicit memory--which is similar to ''book
learning'' (which I will henceforth call ''explicit'' memory); also the cognitive or mental substrates are different
across the two memory types. In the next sections I will describe some of the primary cognitive characteristics of
implicit memory and the implications of this information for voice training models.
Principle #2: Motor Learning Belongs to a Type of Learning and Memory That Occurs Without Awareness
It has long been known that much of human information processing occurs outside of awareness. 6 What has
become increasingly clear over the past century is the reliance of motor learning, specifically, on non-conscious
processes. Some of the clearest evidence is seen with amnesic subjects. Although these individuals do not
remember episodes of practice or even people or places involved in the practice, they readily demonstrate motor
learning for new tasks. 7 , 8 Under the right experimental conditions, healthy subjects also show motor learning for
specific stimuli that they do not remember having practiced. 9 The clear implication from such experimental
observations is that motor learning belongs to a system, or type of process, that does not require awareness and
specifically, awareness of the mechanical principles being learned.
This conclusion is somewhat surprising in view of widely accepted models of motor learning, which state that
early phases of learning are verbS--involving specific awareness of skill mechanics. 10 , 11 , 12 In fact, a careful review
of the literature reveals that the models are suggested views, but there are very few data to back them up. 13 Most
of the data that do exist point to the opposite conclusion. As already noted, motor skills are readily acquired
without awareness of mechanical principles. Furthermore, several studies have indicated that explicit verbal
instructions about mechanics are useless or even harmful to learning (Hodges &Lee, 14 Shea &Wulf, 15 Wulf, Höß,
&Prinz; 16 Wulf &Weigelt). 17 All in all, we conclude that there is little basis in the scientific literature to support the
use of verbal instructions about the mechanics of singing or any other motor behavior .
A comprehensive review of the experimental material in question is provided in a recent chapter by Verdolini and
Lee (in press). For the purposes of the present article, the implications appear relatively straightforward. The use of
verbal instructions about the mechanics of voice production in voice training is poorly founded, or even
contraindicated by the literature . What then, are tools that we can use to get what we, as trainers know about the
physical voice sciences into our students' behavior? This is the topic of the next sections.
Principle #3: Motor Learning appears to Require Attention to Sensory Information
Experiments which have looked at implicit memory in general, and motor learning in particular, have concluded
that sensory--or perceptual processing is central to skill acquisition as seen in (for review, see Verdolini 17 and
Verdolini &Lee). 18 Thinking about it for a moment, this notion does not seem particularly surprising. Perceptual-
motor learning should depend on sensory--or perceptual processing. What is surprising is how often our training
models look as if we think something very different. In the studio or rehearsal, we often act like we think verbal,
not sensory (perceptual) processing is the key. We simply talk too much, and do too little.
If one wishes to encourage sensory processing in the studio or classroom, some non-talking strategies may be
useful. For example, we can ask our students to direct their attention to a physical location in which we think that
something positive is happening technically--or something negative. Similar to suggestions made by Gallwey in his
important paperback, The Inner Game of Tennis (1974), the idea is not for the student to try to judge or change
some aspect of voice production at that moment. The notion is rather for him or her to simply notice it, or attend to
it. This non-analytical way of being ''in the moment'' with one's own body must constitute, neurally, the processing
2
L.R. Squire, (1986). Mechanisms of memory . Science, 232, 1612-1619.

PDF GENERADO POR PROQUEST.COM Page 2 of 7

2
L.R. Squire, (1986). Mechanisms of memory . Science, 232, 1612-1619.
3
A.R. Damasio, (1989). Time-locked multiregional retroactivation: A systems-level proposal for the nural substrates
of recall and recognition. Cognition , 33, 25-62.
4
S. Zola-Morgan, L.R. Squire, &M. Mishkin, (1982). The neuroanatomy of amnesia: Amygdala-hippocampus versus
temporal stem. Science , 218, 1337-1339.
5
Squire.
6
S. Epstein, (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist , 49,
709-724.
7
P.J.Eslinger, &A.R. Damasio, (1986). Preserved motor learning in Alzheimer's disease: Implications for anatomy
and behavior. Journal of Neuroscience , 6, 3006-3990.
8
B. Milner, (1962). Les troubles de la memoire accompagnant des lesions hippocampique bilaterales. In P.
Passouant (Ed.). Physiologie de l'hippocampique . Paris: Centre National de la Recherce Scientifique.
9
K. Verdolini-Marston, &D.A. Balota, (1994). Role of elaborative and perceptual integrative processes in perceptual-
motor performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition , 20, 739-749.
10
J.A. Adams, (1971). A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior , 3, 111-150.
11
P.M. Fitts, (1964). Perceptual-motor skills learning . In A.W. Mellon (Ed.), Categories of human learning (pp. 243-
285). New York: Academic Press.
12
G.S. Snoddy, (1926). Learning and stability: A psychophysical analysis of a case of motor learning with clinical
applications. Journal of Applied Psychology , 10, 1-36.
13
K. Verdolini, &T.D. Lee, (in press). Optimizing Motor Learning in Speech Interventions. In C. Sapienza &J. Casper
rehabilitation in medical speech-language pathology . Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed.
14
N.J. Hodges, &T.D. Lee, (1999). The role of augmented information prior to learning a bimanual visual-motor
coordination task: Do instructions of the movement pattern facilitate learning of relative to discovery learning?
British Journal of Psychology , 90, 389-403.
15
C.H. Shea, &G. Wulf, (1999). Enhancing motor learning through external-focus instructions and feedback. Human
Movement Science , 18, 553-571.
16
G. Wulf, M. Höß, &W. Prinz, (1998). Instructions for motor learning: Differential effects of internal versus external
focus of attention. Journal of Motor Behavior , 30, 169-179.
17
K. Verdolini.
17
K. Verdolini.
18
Verdolini &Lee.

p.48

of sensory information relevant to the task.

Another option to encourage sensory processing is our own modeling for the student. Models may be auditory, as
in demonstrating a particular sound or sound quality. But models may also be visual, as for example in
demonstrating a particular mouth opening, or shoulderto-hip alignment. Such models can be provided without
uttering a single verbal instruction--which is the goal.
A third option for sensory processing is to physically manipulate the student's body in a way that constrains him or
her to experience sound-making using the mechanics that we think are the right ones, inhibiting the wrong ones.
We might use our hands in such manipulations, for example by drawing the student's shoulders back and
expanding the chest. Other times, we may use simple or complicated devices to assist with physical
manipulations. In any event, by using such manipulations students can often directly experience the target voice
production mode, and carry sensations related to it away from the studio or rehearsal, later.

PDF GENERADO POR PROQUEST.COM Page 3 of 7

Principle #4: Motor Learning is enhanced by Learner Effort
As voice teachers, it is natural for us to want to feel good about our teaching sessions. We enjoy the session in
which our student appears to perform well, or even have one of those sought-after moments in all types of training,
the coveted ''breakthrough.'' Paradoxically, instructional strategies that enhance performance during sessions
often reduce long-term learning, and vice versa.
Literally dozens if not hundreds of solid experiments have demonstrated this principle. One example is the use of
''augmented feedback,'' that is feedback from the instructor about performance. It is known that feedback of some
sort is required for learning to occur as suggested by Adams 19 and Swinnen. 20 Paradoxically, though, although
frequent augmented feedback often boosts performance during training sessions, it depresses longterm learning
seen in later, no-feedback follow-up tests. On the other hand, infrequent augmented feedback during training may
make immediate performance seem poor. However, follow-up tests show more learning than occurs following
frequent feedback conditions as pointed out by ((e.g. Lee, White, &Carnahan; 21 Sparrow &Summers; 22
VanderLinden, Cauraugh, &Greene, 23 and Weeks, Zelaznik, &Beyak). 24 Stated differently, as teachers, we should
give our students information about how they are doing relative to target, during training sessions. But we should
not provide this information very often. Even if our lessons do not seem as impressive, our students will actually
learn more if they have to do a lot of the mental work during training .
Another example of the ''effort'' principle regards the use of variable versus non-variable practice. Variable practice
refers to the use of too many different stimuli to train a given behavior (for example, training melismatic singing
using many different passages, in different pitch ranges), as compared with non-variable practice, which uses only
one stimulus (for example, singing the same melisma over and over). Here, again, a maneuver that enhances
immediate performance depresses long-term learning, and vice versa. Non-variable practice produces better gains
during the training session that variable practice. However, later generalization to untrained stimuli benefits much,
much more from variable practice (e.g. McCracken &Stelmach, 1977). Also for the ''variability'' factor, the key
seems to be that students learn more when they are required to put forth their own cognitive effort in solving vocal
problems.
A third example of the ''effort'' factor in motor learning has to do with practice schedule. Blocked practice occurs
when all of the trials for a given goal are practiced, together, before practice is undertaken for other goals (for
example, performing breathing exercises first, then ''focus'' exercises). Random practice occurs when practice for
different goals are intermixed (breathing and focus trials all mixed in together). As for the other ''effort-related''
variables that we have discussed, immediate performance benefits from blocked practice. However, longterm
learning is strongest with random practice. 25 The dearest explanation which is discussed in several texts (for
review, see Verdolini &Lee, in press), is that random practice requires learners to exert effort by re-exciting the
whole neural trace for a given behavior upon each repetition. Operations that were just performed for the prior trial
cannot be re-cycled effortlessly. Such effort appears to strongly benefit learning.
Principle #5: Motor Learning Does Not Involve ''Trying.''
Now we come to an interesting contradiction. Although motor learning appears to require cognitive effort,
intentional trying may be harmful. What we mean here by ''trying'' refers to conscious cognitive effort to identify,
use, and
19
J.A. Adams, (1987). Historical review and appraisal of research on learning, retention, and transfer of human
motor skills. Psychological Bulletin , 101, 41-74.
20
S.P. Swinnen, (1996). Information feedback for motor skill learning: A review . In H.N. Zelaznik (Ed.), Advances in
motor learning and control (pp. 37-66). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
21
T.D. Lee, M.A. White, &H. Carnahan, (1990). On the role of knowledge of results in motor learning: Exploring the
guidance hypothesis. Journal of Motor Behavior , 22, 191-208.
22
W.A. Sparrow, &J.J. Summers, (1992). Performance on trials without knowledge of results (KR) in reduced
relative frequency presentations of KR. Journal of Motor Behavior , 24, 197-209.
23
D.J. Weeks, H. Zelaznik, &B. Beyak, (1993). An empirical note on reduced frequency of knowledge of results.

PDF GENERADO POR PROQUEST.COM Page 4 of 7

Journal of Human Movement Studies , 25, 193-201.
24
D.W. Vander Linden, J.H. Cauraugh, &T.A. Greene, (1993). The effect of frequency of kinetic feedback on learning
an isometric force production task in nondisabled subjects. Physical Therapy , 73, 79-87.
25
J.B. Shea, &R.L. Morgan, (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a
motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory , 5, 179-187.

p.49

judge specific information, rather than letting the non-conscious mind solve the motor problems. In motor learning,
conscious ''trying'' not only has a high likelihood of introducing unwanted muscular tension; it probably invokes the
''dedarative'' or ''explicit'' memory processes which are probably largely irrelevant to motor learning.
The practical translation for the studio or rehearsal room has to do with focusing on the types of sensory
information described above, and being ''in the moment.'' When we actually experience our voice and our body
which produces it, we are doing, not trying . We may evaluate our productions but not judge them, as judgment is
so often negative and emotionally laden. Judging likely leads us to simply ''try harder'' the next time.
Summary
In this brief article, several important principles of motor learning that are relevant for voice training have been
presented. Of course, many more principles are also important. However, the incorporation of the ones discussed
here should already have an impact on the quality and outcome of voice teaching. To summarize, motor learning
appears to depend on a learning and memory process that relies on key structures in the medial temporal lobes of
the brain, in particular the hippocampus and amygdala, and that does not involve conscious awareness. Although
verbalizable awareness of mechanical principles may be irrelevant to learning in some cases, and even harmful in
other cases, paradoxically attention --to sensory information is probably key. As teachers, we can support our
students' learning, on average, by placing ''desirable difficulties'' in their path 26 by using a range of practice stimuli,
under random practice schedules, and by providing only minimum feedback about performance. Such
manipulations are likely to reduce performance levels during training sessions, but should enhance long-term
learning which is the goal. Ultimately, such manipulations serve to increase the learner's own cognitive effort in
learning, and thus increase the learning itself. Finally, a seeming paradox is that although motor learning requires
effort on the part of the learner, trying in the sense of conscious retrieval and use of information is probably
counterproductive.
Some voice trainers, especially those with a background in theatre, already incorporate many of these
suggestions. For teachers who typically use a lot of verbal instructions about the mechanics of voice production,
their application may make training sessions look and feel very different. The data in voice learning will ultimately
confirm the utility of principles known to be relevant for other types of physical training, for voice, as well.
Katherine Verdolini, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, is an associate professor in Communication Sciences and Disorders, School
of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh. She comes to the field of Speech-Language
Pathology as a singer, with past professional concert and studio work. In addition to holding membership in the
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, she is a member of the National Association of Teachers of
Singing, and the Voice and Speech Trainers Association. Her past research has addressed the effect of hydration
on voice production; quantitative biomechanical models of voice production; clinical epidemiological studies in
voice; and clinical efficacy studies.
26
R.A. Bjork, (1998). Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and Illusions . In D. Gopher &A. Koriat (Eds.),
Attention and performance XVII. Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp.
435-459). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

PDF GENERADO POR PROQUEST.COM Page 5 of 7

p.50

Top of Page

©Copyright 2002 American Choral Directors Association.

DETALLES

Materia específica: Voice Training, Vocal Pedagogy, Learning Processes, Motor-Sensory Skills

Materia genérica: Vocal Music, Music Education

Título: On the Voice: Learning Science Applied to Voice Training: The Value of Being "In the
Moment"

Autor: Verdolini, Katherine

Título de publicación: Choral Journal; Lawton, Okla.

Tomo: 42

Número: 7

Páginas: 47-51

Año de publicación: 2002

Fecha de publicación: Feb 2002

Editorial: American Choral Directors Association

Lugar de publicación: Lawton, Okla.

País de publicación: United States, Lawt on, Okla.

Materia de publicación: Vocal Music, Music

ISSN: 0009-5028

e-ISSN: 2163-2170

Tipo de fuente: Revista científica

Artículos evaluados por Sí

expertos:

Idioma de la publicación: English

PDF GENERADO POR PROQUEST.COM Page 6 of 7

 Tipo de documento: Instruction/Guidelines

ID del documento de 1031187

ProQuest:

URL del documento: https://login.libproxy.newschool.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly

-journals/on-voice-learning-science-applied-training-value/docview/1031187/se-
2?accountid=12261

Última actualización: 2017-08-23

Base de datos: Arts Premium Collection

ENLACES
Check for Full Text Availability

Copyright de la base de datos  2021 ProQuest LLC. Reservados todos los derechos.

Términos y condiciones Contactar con ProQuest

PDF GENERADO POR PROQUEST.COM Page 7 of 7