ARTICLE IN PRESS

Long-Term Average Spectrum in Screening of Voice

Quality in Speech: Untrained Male University Students

Timo Leino

Summary: Voice quality has mainly been studied in trained speakers,

singers, and dysphonic patients. Few studies have concerned ordinary un-
trained university students’ voices. In light of earlier studies of professional
voice users, it was hypothesized that good, poor, and intermediate voices
would be distinguishable on the basis of long-term average spectrum charac-
teristics. In the present study, voice quality of 50 Finnish vocally untrained
male university students was studied perceptually and using long-term aver-
age spectrum analysis of text reading samples of one minute duration. Equiv-
alent sound level (Leq) of text reading was also measured. According to the
results, the good and ordinary voices differed from the poor ones in their rel-
atively higher sound level in the frequency range of 1–3 kHz and a prominent
peak at 3–4 kHz. Good voices, however, did not differ from the ordinary voi-
ces in terms of the characteristics of the long-term average spectrum (LTAS).
The strength of the peak at 3–4 kHz and the voice-quality scores correlated
weakly but significantly. Voice quality and alpha ratio (level difference above
and below 1 kHz) correlated likewise. Leq was significantly higher in the
students with good and ordinary voices than in those with poor voices. The
connections between Leq, voice quality, and the formation of the peak at
3–4 kHz warrant further studies.
Key Words: Voice quality—LTAS.

INTRODUCTION average spectrum (LTAS) analysis provides a means

Sound quality is defined as ‘‘the attribute of sound
that makes two sounds of the same pitch and loud-
ness dissimilar.’’1,2 By definition, then, quality, loud-
ness, and pitch are distinct perceptual attributes even
though a change in one may affect another. The phys-
ical correlate of sound quality is sound energy distri-
bution along the frequency range. Long-term
Accepted for publication March 26, 2008.
Department of Speech Communication and Voice Research,
University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Corresponding author. Department of Speech Communica-
tion and Voice Research, University of Tampere, Kalevantie
4, FIN-33014 Tampere, Finland. E-mail: timo.leino@uta.fi
Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, pp. -
0892-1997/$34.00
Ó 2008 The Voice Foundation
doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.03.008
of viewing the average frequency distribution of the
sound energy in a continuous speech sample. The
method yields information of the general voice qual-
ity, if the duration of the sample is long enough to
avoid the effects of individual speech sounds. Li et
al3 regard a sample of 30–40 seconds long enough
to study voice quality, whereas Majewski et al4 rec-
ommend a sample of at least 1 minute. LTAS has
been used to study differences between normal and
pathological voices5–8 and between various vocal pa-
thologies.9–13Among normal-voiced subjects LTAS
has been used to study individual and gender, age
and language related differences.4,14–20 Characteris-
tics of vocal expression of emotions21,22 and acoustic
differences between specific voice qualities23–25
have also been studied with this method. Moreover,
LTAS has been used to investigate singing voice,

1
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 TIMO LEINO
for example, differences between voice categories
and various singing styles.26,27
The suitability of LTAS for vocal screening has
also been questioned. In the study by Kitzing,24
the differences between the LTAS of perceptually
very different voice qualities were in the magnitude
of only 3%–6%. Nor did Nolan find LTAS to dis-
criminate satisfactorily between various articula-
tory settings.23 He concluded that LTAS may
show better glottal than resonatory characteristics
of voice quality. Löfqvist et Mandersson28 found
substantial differences in the LTAS spectra re-
corded from the same subjects during the same
day, which they supposed to impair the usefulness
of LTAS for screening purposes. However, their re-
cordings were made before and after a working day re-
quiring a lot of speaking. Substantial differences in
LTAS have been reported after vocal loading.29–31
Encouraging results on the suitability of LTAS
for differentiation of various voice qualities have
been reported for both normal and disordered
voices.11,13,25
To obtain some objectivity in setting goals for vo-
cal training and for evaluating its effects, Leino used
LTAS to study the differences between good and
poor speaking voices of vocally trained professional
male actors.32,33According to the results LTAS dis-
tinguished between good, fairly good, rather poor,
and poor voice qualities. Poor speaking voices had
relatively lower sound level in the frequency range
of 1–3 kHz, and good voice quality differed from
fairly good and rather poor voice qualities by having
a more prominent peak between 3 and 4 kHz. This
peak seemed to be a kind of an actor’s formant (ref.
singer’s formant34). Perceptual evaluation of voice
quality correlated with the level of the peak.
The present study investigates the voice quality
of normal-voiced, vocally untrained male univer-
sity students.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Subjects and recording
Text reading samples of 50 Finnish male normal-
voiced vocally untrained university students (20–27
years, mean 22 years; no acting students included)
were recorded in the same sound-treated studio using
a digital recorder and a Bruel and Kjaer microphone
Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, 2008
(4165) at a distance of 40 cm from the subject’s
mouth. The speakers were asked to read the same
prose extract in their habitual way, using natural
loudness, that is, neither too soft nor with extra effort,
and with neutral expression, thus, no artistic perfor-
mances were allowed. No external monitoring was
provided to control for F0 or sound level, because
this would have impaired the naturalness of the
speech. The recordings were perceptually monitored
by the researchers, and the subjects were asked to re-
peat the task if some of the requirements reported
above were not met. The duration of each sample
was over one minute. The samples were calibrated
for sound pressure level measurements using a sine
wave generator and a level meter (Bruel and Kjaer
Frequency Analyzer 2120).
Listening evaluation
The reading samples were evaluated by two expe-
rienced professional voice trainers and five students
of vocology. The listeners rated the voice quality us-
ing a scale 3, 2, 1, 0, þ1, þ2, þ3 (3 5 very
poor, þ3 5 excellent). All subjects had training in
perceptual analysis of voices, which had been given
in the same department. According to the terminol-
ogy used in the perceptual training, voice quality is
one of the three basic characteristics of voice to-
gether with pitch and loudness. Listening tests
were carried out in a sound-treated studio. The sam-
ples were played back with a high-quality loud-
speaker (Genelec Biamp 1019A). The listeners
participated in the test in two groups to allow each
subject to be seated sufficiently close (at 2 m) to
the loudspeaker, directly in front of it. The whole
1-minute samples were presented. Leq was set to
be the same in each sample on the listening tape.
The Intelligent Speech Analyser (ISA) signal analy-
sis system, developed by Raimo Toivonen, M.Sc.
Eng., was used in this standardization. First the true
Leq of each sample was measured. Then one of the
samples was chosen as the reference and the Leq of
all the other samples were set up to be the same as
that of the reference by increasing or decreasing their
level by the amount needed.
Spectrum analysis
LTAS was made with a real-time spectrum ana-
lyzer (Hewlett-Packard signal analyzer 3561A). A
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
STUDENTS’ VOICES
400-point linear narrow band fast Fourier transform
(FFT) analysis was used. Earlier findings33 have
shown that broadband analysis does not differenti-
ate sufficiently between voice qualities.
The frequency span was 10 kHz; fast display
mode was used since it provides with real-time
registration up to 7.5 kHz. Voiceless segments
were left out of the analysis by using an analogous
s-gate. Pauses were excluded by using the ampli-
tude trigger of the analyzer. The time record
length was 40 millisecond, and the overlap was
15%. The display resolution was 25 Hz. The flat
top window with the frequency bandwidth of
98 Hz was used because it is practically ripple
free (!0.01 dB) in the passband, and thus gives
the best amplitude accuracy. This characteristic
makes Flat Top window suitable, for instance,
for calibration purposes.
The LTAS were normalized for the strongest
peak and compared to each other according to the
level differences between frequency ranges. The
fact that relative levels were compared instead of
absolute levels made the subjects comparable to
each other regardless of the absolute Leq values
of their samples. In addition, the level difference
between the first formant region and the fundamen-
tal frequency range was measured by the subtrac-
tion L1L0 (see Figure 1). This level difference
has been found to correlate negatively with the per-
ception of breathiness (hypofunctional voice pro-
duction35). That level difference may also be
affected by intensity and F0. In addition to LTAS
measurements, alpha ratio9 was also calculated
with Intelligent Speech Analyser by subtracting
the Leq of the range of 50 Hz–1 kHz from that of
the range of 1–5 kHz.
The text reading samples were divided into dif-
ferent voice quality classes according to the points
given in the listening evaluation (poor 5 mean
points 3 to 1.2, good: þ0.8–to þ2.6, intermedi-
ate: 0.8 to þ0.4). The statistical significance of
the differences between the voice quality groups
was studied by carrying out Student’s unpaired t-
tests and nonparametric Mann–Whitney U tests.
To illustrate the results, the LTAS of individual
samples were averaged over voice quality classes
with a custom-made computer program (developed
by Heikki Alatalo, DSP-Systems).
3
FIGURE 1. Schematic picture of measurement of the level
difference L1–L0 between the F1 variation range (L1) and
the F0 variation range (L0) in LTAS. In this case the difference
is þ2.5 dB.
RESULTS
Test results
Interrater and intrarater reliability of the lis-
teners’ evaluations was satisfactory (Cronbach’s
alpha 5 0.89, Spearman’s Correlation r 5 0.75,
P ! 0.001, respectively). There was a positive cor-
relation between the points given for voice quality
and the average sound energy level in different
frequency ranges (Spearman correlation coefficient
r 5 0.39, P 5 0.005 for 1–2 kHz, r 5 0.40,
P 5 0.004 for 2–3 kHz, and r 5 0.33, P 5 0.018
for 3–4 kHz). L1L0 difference did not correlate
significantly with the perceptual evaluation. Alpha
ratio also correlated with voice quality (r 5 0.31,
P 5 0.032).
The average points given in the listening evalua-
tion allowed a grouping of the voice samples into
14 good voices, 14 poor voices, and 22 intermedi-
ate voices. Figure 2 compares the average LTAS
of the students’ good, poor, and intermediate voi-
ces. The poor voices differed from the good voices
by having relatively less sound energy at the range
of 1–3 kHz. The good voices also had a more prom-
inent peak at 3–4 kHz. The intermediate voices did
not differ from the good ones in terms of the LTAS
characteristics. The analyses were made using
a 10 kHz frequency range, but in figures the spectra
are compared in the range of 0–5 kHz as no signif-
icant differences were found above 5 kHz.
Table 1 shows the statistical results. It can be
seen that the difference between the good and the
Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, 2008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

4 TIMO LEINO

FIGURE 2. Average LTAS for the male university students’
good voices (N 5 14, dark line), poor voices (N 5 14, grey
line), and intermediate voices (N 5 22, dotted line).
poor voices was significant in all other ranges stud-
ied except for 2–3 kHz and 4–5 kHz. The difference
between the good and the intermediate voices, in-
stead, was nonsignificant in all ranges. L1L0 level
difference did not distinguish the three voice quality
groups either (good voices: mean 0.64 dB, SD 3.6;
poor voices: mean 2.11 dB, SD 3.6 and intermedi-
ate voices: mean 0.27 dB, SD 4.2. Differences be-
tween the groups were nonsignificant).
Table 2 summarizes the results of Leq measure-
ments. Students with good voices had significantly
higher Leq than those with poor voices, while stu-
dents with intermediate voices did not differ signif-
icantly from those with good voices.
DISCUSSION
Differences in the LTAS of the voice quality
groups among students were basically similar to
those reported earlier for professional actors.33
Good voices were characterized by a less steep
spectral slope and a more prominent peak at 3–
4 kHz. This peak, however, was not as prominent
in the good students’ voices as in the best voices
of the actors.33 For the students the level of the
3.5 kHz peak was on the average 28 dB, relative
to the strongest peak in the LTAS. According to ear-
lier results, the level of this peak was on the average
20 dB for the best voices of the actors. The cor-
relation between the strength of the peak and the
perceptual voice quality was low in students,
whereas according to earlier results it was moderate
in actors.33 Good voices did not differ from the or-
dinary voices among the students. This acoustic
finding is in accordance with voice trainers’ percep-
tion that clearly good voices are quite rare among
vocally untrained university students. Among
young students this may be due to social pressure
not to be different from the others.
LTAS illustrates both phonatory and resonatory
characteristics. However, Nolan23 has found that
LTAS is more capable of distinguishing between
phonatory than resonatory differences in voice

TABLE 1. Differences between the average LTAS and Alpha ratio (level difference above and below 1 kHz): Leq
(1–5 kHz)–Leq (50 Hz–1 kHz) of good voices (N 5 14), poor voices (N 5 14), and intermediate voices (N 5 22)
of Finnish male university students (N 5 50 in total)
0–1 kHz 1–2 kHz 2–3 kHz 3–4 kHz 4–5 kHz Alpha

Good
Mean 7.6 dB 18.5 dB 27.5 dB 32.2 dB 42.4 dB 11.3
SD 1.8 3.3 4.0 4.1 2.8 (15.3 to 8.1)
Poor
Mean 9.8 dB 22.0 dB 30.0 dB 36.5 dB 44.5 dB 13.3
SD 2.1 3.5 2.5 4.1 5.0 (18.3 to 8.7)
Intermediate
Mean 8.3 dB 18.2 dB 26.5 dB 31.6 dB 42.3 dB 10.5
SD 2.1 4.3 5.7 6.0 3.8 (15.5 to 5.9)
Significance of differences
Good/poor P 5 0.006 P 5 0.012 NS P 5 0.015 NS P 5 0.043
Good/intermediate; NS NS NS NS NS NS
Mean and standard deviations are given for the averages of the normalized amplitude values in different frequency ranges. Statistical
significance: Mann–Whitney U test.
NS 5 nonsignificant 5 P O 0.05.

Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, 2008

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

STUDENTS’ VOICES 5

TABLE 2. Differences between Leq of the students with good voices (N 5 14), poor voices (N 5 14),
and intermediate voices (N 5 22)
Good Intermediate Poor

Mean 72.8 dB 70.9 dB 67.7 dB

SD 2.7 3.6 4.0

Significance of differences
Good/poor P 5 0.001 Good/intermediate; NS Intermediate/poor; P 5 0.019
Statistical significance: Mann–Whitney U test.
NS 5 nonsignificant 5 P O 0.05.

qualities. The level differences between frequency
ranges in the LTAS reflect the slope of the source
spectrum, which in turn is related to the glottal
closing speed. Increased closing speed gives
a less tilting slope.36 The spectral tilt is known to
decrease together with vocal intensity and effort in-
crease. This is due to the fact that the higher over-
tones gain more in intensity than the lower ones
when the overall intensity is increased.37 In the
present study the students with good and ordinary
voices used somewhat more intense voice than the
students with poor voices (mean difference 1.9 dB
between good and intermediate voices and 5.1 dB
between good and poor voices).
Sound level and voice quality seem to be interre-
lated. In general, sound level tends to be somewhat
higher after vocal exercising or a longer voice train-
ing period.38,39 This may suggest that subglottic
pressure is higher after training. We may ask
whether the only difference between speakers
with good voices and those with not so good voices
is related to the habitual loudness of speech—and
could thus be abolished by merely asking the
speakers with poor voices to speak more loudly.
On the other hand, somewhat higher sound level
could also be a sign of improved vocal function
per se. For instance, there are results suggesting
that the glottal spectrum tilts less for trained singers
than for untrained subjects.38 This could result from
a higher glottal closing speed or a more favorable
input impedance of the vocal tract, for example, ep-
ilaryngeal narrowing.40 A faster glottal closing
speed could show a more adequate adduction and/
or improved mobility of the vocal folds. The latter
could possibly result from a more economic activ-
ity ratio between cricothyroid and thyroarytenoid
muscles.41 The strength of the 3–4 kHz peak com-
pared to the strongest spectral peak (F0 or F1) is
naturally to some extent related to overall spectral
slope, but the prominence of that peak in the
good voices of the actors does not seem to be
merely a result of a less tilting spectral slope. Ac-
cording to the earlier studies by Leino,33 it was
not the level differences between frequency ranges
but the prominence of the 3.5 kHz peak in the aver-
age LTAS that distinguished the actors’ good voices
from the fairly good and rather poor voices. Below
3 kHz the relative sound level of the rather poor
voices was the same and that of the fairly good voi-
ces was even higher than that of the good voices. In
individual LTAS, it has been possible to see that the
peak at 3.5 kHz, the actor’s formant, can be almost
as strong or in some cases even stronger than the
preceding peak in the range of 2–3 kHz.42 This sug-
gests that the peak is not only a result of strong
voice source overtones in general but of a special
resonance type, most likely related to the actors’
technique of ‘‘projecting.’’ The region above
3 kHz is supposed to be more prone to show reso-
natory than phonatory characteristics.24 The results
of Hurme43 also showed that when the speakers in-
creased voice intensity (55–65–75 dB) in text read-
ing (30 seconds), the level differences between
frequency ranges in the LTAS (strongest peak set
as zero) changed substantially more below 3 kHz
than above it. At 4 kHz the change was nonsignifi-
cant. This was also demonstrated in Nordenberg
and Sundberg.44
The clear valleys separating the 3.5 kHz peak
from its surroundings suggest that it is formed by
a formant or a cluster of formants. This peak may
basically be related to the fourth formant.

Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, 2008

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 TIMO LEINO
According to the results of Iivonen and Laukka-
nen,45 the fourth formant for a male speaker of
Finnish was located at the range 3,360–3,800 Hz
depending on both the vowel and its duration.
Thus, the vowel-related changes in the frequency
of F4 were only minor. This suggests that F4 is
not very heavily dependent on articulation and
thus most likely is not very language dependent ei-
ther. A fairly strong peak at 3.5 kHz can also be
seen in the LTAS of speakers of different lan-
guages: Dejonckere published such an LTAS in
a French speaking subject,6 Frøkjær-Jensen and
Prytz9 obviously from samples in Danish and Nolan
from a sample in English.23 Nawka found this peak
in good voices among German speakers.46 This
peak, however, is not an absolute prerequisite of
a good voice quality, and sometimes it can also
be seen in not so good voices,47 for example, in
those with vocal fry.23
The level difference L1L0 has been found to
correlate negatively with the perception of breathi-
ness (hypofunctional voice production35). Further-
more, the level difference has been found to rise
after voice training while the perceptual voice qual-
ity also became ‘‘tighter’’ (ie, more hyperfunc-
tional).39 According to the results of the present
study, L1L0 difference was on average positive
for the good and ordinary voices and negative for
the poor voices. This suggests that the relative level
of the F0 was lower and voice production thus most
likely tighter in the students with good and ordinary
voices compared to those with poor voices. This
may be related to greater loudness or otherwise
tighter adduction. Bele has also found a greater
L1L0 and stronger sound level in actors com-
pared to teachers.47 In the present study, however,
L1L0 difference did not differentiate significantly
between voice qualities of normal voiced untrained
students. This may be due to the fact that not so
good voice may be either more hypofunctional or
more hyperfunctional than the optimum and thus
at group level the differences in this parameter
will cancel each other out.
CONCLUSIONS
In vocally untrained male students’ speaking
samples, those which were perceived as
Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, 2008
representing a good voice quality differed from
those perceived as representing a poor voice quality
by having a relatively higher sound level between 1
and 3 kHz in the LTAS and a more prominent peak
at 3–4 kHz. Good voices did not differ from inter-
mediate voices. Leq was significantly lower in sam-
ples evaluated as poor in voice quality. The level
difference between the regions of the fundamental
and the first formant did not differentiate between
voice qualities.
The peak at 3–4 kHz (actor’s formant) cannot re-
sult from louder voice alone but seems to imply
some resonatory phenomena as well. The effects
of Leq and resonance characteristics on the LTAS
characteristics of trained and untrained ‘‘good voi-
ces’’ need to be studied further.
Acknowledgments: The author is grateful to Mr. Jussi
Helin for technical assistance in the analyses and to
Mrs. Virginia Mattila, M.A., for language correction of
the manuscript. Professors Johan Sundberg and Anne-
Maria Laukkanen are acknowledged for their valuable
comments.
REFERENCES
1. Ansi S. USA standard: Acoustical terminology (s 1.1).
New York: American National Standards Institute, Inc.;
1960.
2. Titze IR. Principles of voice production. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J: Prentice Hall; 1994.
3. Li K-P, Hughes GW, House AS. Correlation characteristics
and dimensionality of speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am.
1969;46:1019–1025.
4. Majewski W, Rothman H, Hollien H. Acoustic compari-
sons of American English and Polish. J of Phon. 1977;5:
247–251.
5. Gauffin J, Sundberg J. Clinical applications of acoustic
voice analysis—acoustical analysis, results and discussion.
In: NH. Buch, ed. Proceedings of the International Associ-
ation of Logopedics and Phoniatrics Congress 15–18 Au-
gust 1977, Copenhagen, Denmark. Herning: Organizing
Committee of the Congress, 1978:489–502.
6. Formby C, Monsen RB. Long-term average speech spectra
for normal and hearing-impaired adolescents. J Acoust Soc
Am. 1982;71:196–202.
7. Hurme P, Sonninen A. Normal and disordered voice quality:
listening tests and long-term spectrum analyses. In: Hurme P,
ed, Papers in Speech Research, Vol. 6. Jyväskylä: Department
of Communication, University of Jyväskylä; 1985:49–72.
8. Dejonckere PH. Acoustic analysis of voice production. Es-
sai de synthèse dans une optique clinique. Acta Oto-Rhino-
Laryngologica Belgica. 1986;40:377–385.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
STUDENTS’ VOICES
9. Frøkjær-Jensen B, Prytz S. Registration of voice quality.
Brüel Kjær Tech Rev. 1976;3:3–17.
10. Prytz S. Long-time-average-spectra (LTAS) analyses of
normal and pathological voices. In: NH. Buch, ed. Pro-
ceedings of the International Association of Logopedics
and Phoniatrics Congress 15–18 August 1977, Copenha-
gen, Denmark. Herning: Organizing Committee of the
Congress, 1978: 459–475.
11. Wendler J, Doherty ET, Hollien H. Voice classification by
means of long-term speech spectra. Folia phon. 1980;32:
51–60.
12. Hammarberg B, Fritzell B, Gauffin J, Sundberg J,
Wedin L. Perceptual and acoustic correlates of abnormal
voice qualities. Acta otolaryngologica. 1980;90:441–451.
13. Dejonckere PH, Villarosa D. Long-term spectrum analysis
of the voice. Comparaison de voix normales et de voix altér-
ées par différentes catégories de pathologies laryngées. Acta
Oto-Rhino Laryngologica Belgica. 1986;40:426–435.
14. Benson R, Hirsh I. Some variables in audio spectrometry.
J Acoust Soc Am. 1953;25:499–505.
15. Pruzansky S. Pattern matching procedure for automatic
talker recognition. J Acoust Soc Am. 1963;35:354–358.
16. Niemøller A, McCormick L, Miller J. On the spectrum of
spoken English. J Acoust Soc Am. 1974;55:461.
17. Kiukaanniemi H, Siponen P, Mattila P. Individual differ-
ences in the long-term speech spectrum. Folia phoniatrica.
1982;34:21–28.
18. Harmegnies B, Landercy A. Intra-speaker variability of the
long term speech spectrum. Speech Commun. 1988;7:81–86.
19. Pavlovic V, Rossi M, Espesser R. Statistical distributions
of speech of various languages. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990;
88(Suppl 1):176.
20. Byrne D, Dillon H, Tran K, et al. An international compar-
ison of long-term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc
Am. 1994;96:2108–2120.
21. Williams CE, Stevens KN. Emotions and speech: some
acoustical correlates. J Acoust Soc Am. 1972;52:1238–1250.
22. Pittam J, Gallois C, Callan V. The long-term spectrum and
perceived emotion. Speech Commun. 1990;9:177–187.
23. Nolan F. The Phonetic Bases of Speaker Recognition.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 1983.
24. Kitzing P. LTAS criteria pertinent to the measurement of
voice quality. J Phon. 1986;14:477–482.
25. Pittam J. Discrimination of five voice qualities and
prediction to perceptual ratings. Phonetica. 1987;44:38–
49.
26. Dmitriev L, Kiselev A. Relationship between the formant
structure of different types of singing voices and the di-
mension of supraglottal cavities. Folia phoniatr. 1979;31:
238–241.
27. Rossing T, Sundberg J, Ternström S. Acoustic comparison
of voice use in solo and choir singing. J Acoust Soc Am.
1986;79:1975–1981.
28. Löfqvist A, Mandersson B. Long-time average spectrum
of speech and voice analysis. Folia Phoniatr. 1987;39:
221–229.
7
29. Novak A, Dlouha O, Capoca B, Vohradnik M. Voice fa-
tigue after theatre performance in actors. Folia Phoniatr.
1991;43:74–78.
30. Rantala L, Paavola L, Körkkö P, Vilkman E. Working-day
effects on the spectral characteristics of teaching voice.
Folia Phoniatr Logop. 1998;50:205–211.
31. Jónsdottir V, Laukkanen A-M, Siikki I. Changes in
teachers’ voice quality during a working day with and
without electric sound amplification. Folia Phoniatr
Logop. 2003;55:267–280.
32. Leino T. The spectral characteristics of good voice. In:
Finnish. Licentiate Thesis in Logopedics. Helsinki: Univer-
sity of Helsinki, Department of Phonetics; 1976.
33. Leino T. Long-term average spectrum study on speaking
voice quality in male actors. In: Friberg A, Iwarsson J,
Jansson E, Sundberg J, eds, SMAC93, Proceedings of the
Stockholm Music Acoustics Conference, July 28–August
1, 1993, No 79. Stockholm: The Royal Swedish Academy
of Music; 1994:206–210.
34. Sundberg J. Articulatory interpretation of the singing for-
mant. J Acoust Soc Am. 1974;55:838–844.
35. Laukkanen A-M, Vintturi J, Vilkman E, Sala E, Siikki I,
Lukkarila P. Perceptual, acoustic and self-reported corre-
lates of vocal loading. In: Proceedings of the XXVth world
congress of the International Association of Logopedics
and Phoniatrics in Montreal.
36. Gauffin J, Sundberg J. Data on the glottal voice source be-
havior in vowel production. In: Speech Transmission Lab-
oratory, Quarterly Progress and Status Report, 2–3.
Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology; 1980. 61–70.
37. Fant G. Speech Sounds and Features. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Press; 1973.
38. Wedin S, Leanderson R, Wedin L. Evaluation of voice
training. In: N.H. Buch, ed. Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics Congress
15–18 August 1977, Copenhagen, Denmark. Herning: Or-
ganizing Committee of the Congress, 1978:361–381.
39. Laukkanen A-M, Syrjä T, Laitala M, Leino T. Effects of
two-month vocal exercising with and without spectral bio-
feedback on student actors’ speaking voice. Log Phon
Vocol. 2004;29:66–76.
40. Titze IR, Story BH. Acoustic interactions of the voice
source with the lower vocal tract. J Acoust Soc Am.
1997;101(4):2234–2243.
41. Titze IR, Talkin DT. A theoretical study of the effects of
various laryngeal configurations on the acoustics of phona-
tion. J Acoust Soc Am. 1979;66(1):60–74.
42. Leino T, Kärkkäinen P. On the effects of vocal training
on the speaking voice quality of male student actors. In:
Elenius K, Branderud P, eds, Proceedings of the XIIIth
International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Stockholm,
Sweden 13–19 August, 1995, Vol. 3 of 4. Stockholm:
Department of Speech Communication and Music
Acoustics, Royal Institute of Technology and the Depart-
ment of Linguistics, Stockholm University; 1995:496–
499.
Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, 2008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 TIMO LEINO
43. Hurme P. Acoustic Studies of Voice Variation. Doctoral
thesis. In: Jyväskylä Studies in Communication, 7. Jyväs-
kylä: University of Jyväskylä; 1996.
44. Nordenberg M, Sundberg J. Effect on LTAS of vocal
loudness variation. Logop Phoniatr Vocol. 2004;29:183–
191.
45. Iivonen A, Laukkanen A-M. Explanations of the qualita-
tive variation of Finnish vowels. In: Iivonen A,
Lehtihalmes M, eds. Studies in Logopedics and Phonetics
Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, 2008
4, Series B: Phonetics, Logopedics and Speech Communi-
cation, 5. Helsinki: Department of Phonetics, University of
Helsinki; 1993:29–54.
46. Nawka T, Anders LC, Cebulla M, Zurakowski D. The
speaker’s formant in male voices. J Voice. 1997;11(4):
422–428.
47. Bele IV. Professional Speaking Voice: A Perceptual and
Acoustic Study of Male Actors’ and Teachers’ Voices. Doc-
toral dissertation. University of Oslo; 2002.