Keywords
voice - laryngeal disorders - speech therapy - larynx - glottal gap
Introduction
The glottic proportion reflects the length relation between the membrane and the cartilaginous
portions of the vocal folds.[1]
[2] In female larynxes, a glottic proportion of 1:1 occurs, so the approximation of
the arytenoids cartilages is not complete, creating the posterior glottal gap to phonation
in women.[3]
[4]
The glottal gap is frequently related to the occurrence of dysphonia, but studies
have revealed that the posterior glottal gap can be found in voices without alteration,[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] so it is considered the standard glottic closure in women with no voice disorders.
The understanding of the vocal production without alterations is fundamental to guide
the voice professionals, as it is fundamental to understand the effects of the posterior
glottal gap on the vocal quality. This gap is considered physiological in women. In
the present study, we have verified the association among glottic closure, acoustic
parameters, and some characteristics of the videolaryngostroboscopy of young women
without vocal complaints nor laryngeal disorders.
Materials and Methods
The research was characterized as a cross-sectional study, previously approved by
the Ethics Committee in Research of our institution (23081.016945/2010–76). The data
collection started after all the participants read and signed the Informed Consent
(IC), which was created as recommended by the Resolution 466/12 of the Brazilian National
Health Council, authorizing the storage and use of the information in scientific research,
as long as the identity of the participants is not disclosed.
The inclusion criteria were: females; aged between 20 and 40 years old—within this
age range, the vocal apparatus has not suffered aging-related hormonal or structural
influence,[7]
[10] and no further alterations due to the mutational voice period are expected[2]; and IC adhesion.
The exclusion criteria were: laryngeal affections; vocal complaints, such as hoarseness,
vocal fatigue, voice failures, or throat burning sensation, since these are symptoms
suggestive of some type of vocal alteration at the organic or at the behavioral level[2]
[7]
[10]
[11]; report of hormonal changes arising from pregnancy, from the menstrual or the premenstrual
period on the evaluation day; history of neurological, psychiatric, endocrinological,
or gastric[2] disease that could influence the vocal performance or the understanding of commands
during the evaluations; flu, respiratory allergies, or another disease that could
limit the vocal performance on the evaluation day; frequent alcohol use and/or smoking
habit, as they may cause organic vocal problems; speech-language and/or previous otorhinolaryngological
treatment, to discard the possibility of any vocal disorder (even the ones already
treated) and/or any vocal conditioning with vocal techniques; auditory alterations,
since they may change the vocal self-monitoring, compromising the voice quality; changes
to the stomatognathic system that could interfere in the speech articulation, compromising
the voice; being a voice professional, to avoid any type of vocal conditioning which
could influence the results.[2]
For the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the volunteers read and
signed the IC, answered the medical history interview, performed an otorhinolaryngological
evaluation, and underwent a phonoaudiological screening that included an orofacial
myofunctional assessment and a hearing evaluation.
Five women were excluded (three due to laryngeal affections, one for having already
underwent a prior speech-language treatment, and one for being a smoker); the study
group comprised 56 adult women without vocal complaints and with normal larynx, aged
between 20 and 30 years old (average of 25 ± 1 years old).
For the data collection, an otorhinolaryngologist performed the videolaryngostroboscopy
examination with a rigid laryngoscope (Hopkins, Atmos Medizintechnik GmbH & Co., Lenzkirch,
Germany), maintaining the same distance and angle from the larynx, without use of
anesthetic and with image recording on DVD. The volunteers were advised to perform
the sustained emission of the vowels /e/ and /i/ in vocal chest modal voice, after
deep inspiration, until the end of the expiration. Afterwards, these images were analyzed
by three otolaryngologists experienced in laryngology, independently from each other,
and the predominant opinion among the judges was considered.
The analysis of the laryngeal images assessed the glottic closure (complete, anterior
gap, irregular gap, fusiform gap, posterior glottal gap, middle-posterior triangular
gap, gap in hourglass); the amplitude of vibration (normal, restricted, increased,
greatly increased); the laryngeal vestibule constriction (absent or present: medial,
anteroposterior, global). This assessment was performed through a protocol developed
by the authors, based on the literature.[7]
[12]
On the same occasion of the completion of the videolaryngostroboscopy examination,
in a quiet room, with the women in the orthostatic position, after deep inspiration,
the sustained emission of the vowel /a/ in the usual pitch and loudness by emitting
the sound during the maximum phonation time was recorded. A Shure 57A unidirectional
microphone (Shure Inc., Niles, IL, USA) coupled to a Sony MZ-R7000DPC digital recorder
(Sony Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) was positioned at 90° and at a distance of 4 cm in
front of the mouth of the individual.[2]
[10]
The sample of the vowel /a:/ was used for the acoustic analysis of the glottal source.
It was converted to 44 kHz, 16 bits with the WavePad software, Release 5.10 (NCH Software,
Greenwood Village, CO, USA), and the beginning of the emission was excluded so that
the vocal attack did not interfere in the data analysis.[13] The vocal acoustic parameters measured were: fundamental frequency (F0); minimum
frequency; maximum frequency jitter (local); jitter (local, absolute); jitter (rap);
jitter (ppq5); jitter (ddp); shimmer (local); shimmer (local, dB); shimmer (apq3);
shimmer (apq5); shimmer (apq11); shimmer (ddp); harmonic-noise ratio (HNR); and noise-harmonic
ratio (NHR). The measurement of the vocal acoustic parameters was made with the Praat
software, Release 4.6.10 (Paul Boersman and David Weenik, Amsterdam, Netherlands).
The statistical data analysis used the chi-squared, Fischer, and Kruskall-Wallis tests,
with a significance of 5%.
Results
From the data on [Table 1], a significant occurrence of the posterior glottal gap was verified when compared
with the complete glottic closure. The normal vocal folds vibration amplitude was
significant in relation to the increased vibration amplitude. A significant absence
of laryngeal vestibule constriction was also observed.
Table 1
Results of the videolaryngostroboscopy
|
n = 56
|
%
|
p-value
|
|
Glottic closure
|
|
Complete
|
8
|
14 ± 2
|
< 0.001*
|
|
Posterior glottal gap
|
48
|
86 ± 2
|
|
Vocal folds vibration amplitude
|
|
Increased
|
1
|
2 ± 2
|
< 0.001*
|
|
Decreased
|
9
|
16 ± 2
|
|
Normal
|
46
|
82 ± 2
|
|
Laryngeal vestibule constriction
|
|
Absent
|
55
|
98 ± 2
|
< 0.001*
|
|
Present
|
1
|
2 ± 2
|
Chi-squared test; p-value = 0.05; *significance.
[Table 2] shows the comparison among the following variables: type of closing, vibration amplitude,
and laryngeal vestibule constriction. No significant result was observed.
Table 2
Type of closing, vibration amplitude, and laryngeal vestibule constriction variables
|
Glottic closure
|
|
Complete
% (n)
|
Posterior glottal gap
% (n)
|
n
|
|
*Vocal folds vibration amplitude
|
|
Decreased
|
13%
(1)
|
17 ± 2%
(8)
|
9
|
|
Normal
|
87%
(7)
|
81 ± 2%
(39)
|
46
|
|
Increased
|
0%
(0)
|
2 ± 2%
(1)
|
1
|
|
n
|
8
|
48
|
56
|
|
Glottic closure
|
|
Complete
% (
n
)
|
Posterior glottal gap
% (
n
)
|
|
|
*Laryngeal vestibule constriction
|
|
Absent
|
100%
(8)
|
98 ± 2%
(47)
|
55
|
|
Present
|
0%
(0)
|
2 ± 2%
(1)
|
1
|
|
n
|
8
|
48
|
56
|
|
Laryngeal vestibule constriction
|
|
Absent
% (
n
)
|
Present
% (
n
)
|
|
|
*Vocal folds vibration amplitude
|
|
Decreased
|
16 ± 2%
(9)
|
0%
(0)
|
9
|
|
Normal
|
82 ± 2%
(45)
|
100%
(1)
|
46
|
|
Increased
|
2 ± 2%
(1)
|
0%
(0)
|
1
|
|
n
|
55
|
1
|
56
|
*Fisher exact tests; p-value = 1.000.
[Table 3] shows that there was no significant difference between the measurements of the vocal
acoustic parameters of women with complete glottic closure and with posterior glottal
gap.
Table 3
Relationship between glottic closure and vocal acoustic parameters, with measurements
obtained through Praat
|
Glottic closure
|
p-value
|
|
Complete
|
Posterior glottal gap slit
|
|
Average
|
SD
|
Average
|
SD
|
|
f0 median (HZ)
|
206.5
|
27.23
|
178.7
|
69.56
|
0.399
|
|
f0 average (HZ)
|
202.1
|
37.88
|
199.7
|
26.73
|
0.690
|
|
Standard deviation f0 (Hz)
|
5.72
|
10.71
|
1.91
|
0.49
|
0.656
|
|
Minimum frequency (Hz)
|
185.89
|
45.40
|
194.68
|
25.28
|
0.796
|
|
Maximum frequency (Hz)
|
211.82
|
38.29
|
204.54
|
26.43
|
0.373
|
|
Jitter local (%)
|
0.44
|
0.32
|
0.34
|
0.10
|
0.246
|
|
Jitter local, absolute (μs)
|
18.56
|
7.18
|
17.72
|
7.41
|
0.673
|
|
Jitter rap (%)
|
0.23
|
0.08
|
0.19
|
0.06
|
0.214
|
|
Jitter ppq5 (%)
|
0.26
|
0.21
|
0.20
|
0.05
|
0.276
|
|
Jitter ddp (%)
|
0.71
|
0.28
|
0.59
|
0.18
|
0.281
|
|
Shimmer local (%)
|
3.13
|
2.50
|
2.75
|
1.20
|
0.673
|
|
Shimmer local dB (dB)
|
0.37
|
0.69
|
0.24
|
0.11
|
0.519
|
|
Shimmer apq3 (%)
|
1.69
|
1.29
|
1.51
|
0.60
|
0.796
|
|
Shimmer apq5 (%)
|
2.47
|
3.16
|
1.76
|
0.87
|
0.425
|
|
Shimmer apq11 (%)
|
2.35
|
1.87
|
2.03
|
1.02
|
0.459
|
|
Shimmer dda (%)
|
5.18
|
3.84
|
4.55
|
1.81
|
0.738
|
|
NHR
|
0.01
|
0.01
|
0.01
|
0.00
|
0.607
|
|
HNR (dB)
|
21.30
|
3.67
|
20.97
|
2.56
|
0.756
|
Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.
Mann-Whitney test; p-value = 0.05.
Discussion
We have evaluated the glottic closure of 56 women aged between 20 and 30 years old,
with an average age of 25 ± 1 years old, without vocal complaints nor laryngeal affections.
A significant occurrence of posterior glottal gap, normal vocal folds vibration amplitude,
and absence of laryngeal vestibule constriction was observed ([Table 1]). In all the vocal acoustic parameters measured, no significant difference was observed
between women with complete glottic closure and women with posterior glottal gap.
([Table 3]).
The significant occurrence of posterior glottal gap is in line with the literature
that considers this gap a frequent characteristic found in women due to the typical
glottic proportion of the female larynx, in which the arytenoid approximation is not
complete.[2]
[3]
[4]
[7] However, the posterior glottis in women has an area of ∼ 31 mm2, that is, it represents 60% of all the glottic rhyme; in men, this area is of 45
mm2, which corresponds to 56% of all the glottic rhyme.[14] This suggests a similarity between men and women in the area of the posterior region
of the glottis, and may explain why 14 ± 2% (8 women) were found to have complete
glottic closure in the present study ([Table 1]).
In the present study, 86 ± 2% of the women presented posterior glottal gap ([Table 1]), similarly to what has been described by other works.[3]
[4]
[7] In a case study that examined the glottic closure of young women without vocal complaints,
the occurrence of posterior glottal gap in three out of the five women evaluated was
observed.[13] In another study,[6] the impact of different phonation modes on the glottic closure of 21 young women
with normal voices was evaluated, and it was verified that the glottic closure was
typically incomplete in this group. In addition, it has been found that different
vocal techniques, such as nasal sounds, may aid glottic closure.
To maintain a stable vocal emission, a balance between the aerodynamic forces of the
pulmonary air flow and the myoelastic larynx forces is needed.[2] The air output caused by the posterior glottal gap can favor the predominance of
the aerodynamic forces, conferring aperiodic energy or a nasal voice.[7] This air output may unbalance the pneumophonic coordination and generate long-term
instabilities, such as fluctuations, or a decline in pitch or loudness.
The absence of a significant difference between women with complete glottic closure
and women with posterior glottal gap, in all the vocal acoustic parameters measured
([Table 3]), and the significant occurrence of normal vocal folds vibration amplitude, as well
as the significant absence of laryngeal vestibule constriction in our study ([Table 1]), show that the occurrence of posterior glottal gap did not generate an impact on
the vocal acoustic parameters measured. As other studies show,[2]
[3]
[4]
[7] the posterior glottal gap is considered physiological and is restricted to the respiratory
region of the larynx. The women with posterior glottal gap were not the same presenting
decreased vocal folds vibration amplitude or laryngeal vestibule constriction, ([Table 2]); this reinforces considering the posterior glottal gap as physiological.
In the present study, the average of the fundamental frequency (f0 median) of the
women with posterior glottal gap was 178.7 Hz ([Table 3]), which is compatible with the results found in other studies with women without
vocal complaints nor laryngeal affections.[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] The values of jitter, shimmer, NHR, and HNR ([Table 3]) also match those from other studies with women without vocal complaints nor laryngeal
affections.[10]
[13]
The vocal production is not entirely periodic; any human vocal sign presents disturbances
even when executed by fully concentrated non-dysphonic individuals. The disturbances
may be caused by different laryngeal configurations or muscular forces; by variations
in the source-filter relation during phonation; by the airflow through the glottis
during the emission, which generates instability and turbulence; and by the influence
of the respiratory level on the emission.[9] In the present study, the air flowing through the posterior glottal gap did not
generate significant changes in the short term disturbances, as shown by the jitter
and shimmer measurements presented in [Table 3].
These findings are different from the ones in another study that used a computerized
model of the larynx[8], which found acoustic and aerodynamic changes due to the posterior glottal gap,
as the voiceless airflow through the glottis in the vocal tract changed the aerodynamics,
the acoustics, and the subsequent dynamic behavior of the larynx. Computerized models
may still fail in accounting for all the details involved in the vocal production
present in the human larynx.
In the present study, the sample size and the age range prevented us from extending
the conclusions to all women.
Thus, other studies may explore the human vocal characteristics regarding the types
of glottic closure present in other populations and within other age ranges.
Conclusion
Young adult women showed a predominance of posterior glottal gap, normal vocal folds
vibration amplitude, absence of laryngeal vestibule constriction, and no relation
with the measurements of vocal acoustic parameters. The physiological posterior glottal
gap did not influence the measurements of the vocal acoustic parameters in the present
study.
