Vocal Fold Vibratory Dose and Perceived Exertion Responses to the Fluid Interval Test for Voice (FIT-V): A Novel Vocal Loading Task Platform.

INTRODUCTION

Vocal loading tasks are often used to study how specific variables influence downstream vocal effort or fatigue. The current study introduces a novel vocal loading task, the Fluid Interval Test for Voice (FIT-V) that combines laryngeal diadochokinesis, intervallic rest and exercise, and fluid back pressure. To assess the differences between this novel task and existing vocal loading tasks, we measured vocal fold vibratory dose and perceived phonatory exertion across three 30-minute task conditions: a control loud oral reading task (LOR), a back pressure-resisted Fluid Interval Test for Voice (FIT-V), and an unresisted Fluid Interval Test for Voice (FIT-V).

METHODS

Following a training session, 30 participants completed the three tasks (LOR, FIT-V, and FIT-V) in counterbalanced order on different days. Vocal fold cycle (Aim 1A) and distance doses (Aim 1B) were collected continuously using a dosimeter. The overall perceived phonatory exertion (Aim 2A) was rated once per minute, while anatomically localized cognitive, laryngeal, thoracic, abdominal, and articulatory exertion (Aim 2B) were rated once at the end of each task. Statistical analyses examined the effects of task and task× time interactions on the dependent variables.

RESULTS

The FIT-V and FIT-V tasks imposed smaller vocal fold cycle doses (P < 0.001; Aim 1A) and distance doses (P < 0.001; Aim 1B) than the LOR task while eliciting comparable or greater magnitudes of overall perceived phonatory exertion (P = 0.003; Aim 2A). However, anatomically localized perceived exertion was greater in the abdomen and thorax (P < 0.05) and lesser in the anterior neck (P < 0.05) in the two FIT-V tasks relative to the LOR task (Aim 2B). Absolute forced vital capacity was a significant predictor of most forms of anatomically localized perceived exertion.

DISCUSSION

The unresisted FIT-V and the back pressure-resisted FIT-V tasks yielded similar profiles of overall perceived phonatory exertion, despite vocal fold vibratory doses roughly half that of the LOR task. However, the anatomically localized perceived exertion data underscored subtle across-task differences not apparent in the overall ratings, suggesting potentially distinct physiological and perceptual niches for the three task protocols.