Objective: Our interest was in how teachers’ voices behave during the delivery of lessons in core subjects (e.g., mathematics, science, etc.). We sought to evaluate the relationship between voice sound pressure level (SPL), vocal fundamental frequency (F0), voice symptoms, activity noise, and differences therein during the first and the last lessons in core subjects of the day. Patients and Methods: The participants were 24 female elementary school teachers. Voice symptoms were evaluated by questionnaire. The data were recorded on 2 portable voice accumulators (VoxLog) from the first and last lessons of the day. The versions of accumulators differed by frequency weighting; therefore, the analysis and the results of noise and voice SPL were treated separately: unweighted (group 1) and A-weighted (group 2). Results: Difference in voice SPL followed difference in activity noise. F0 increased between the first and last lessons. Correlations were found between differences in the noise and the voice symptoms of tiredness and dryness. Irritating mucus was associated with high F0 during the first lesson. Conclusion: An apparent increase in voice loading due to the activity noise was observed during lessons in core subjects. Collaboration between specialists in voice and acoustics and teachers and pupils is needed to reduce this voice loading.

1.
Sala E, Rantala L: Acoustics and activity noise in school classrooms in Finland. Appl Acoust 2016; 114: 252–259.
2.
Kristiansen J, Lund SP, Persson R, Shibuya H, Nielsen PM, Scholz M: A study of classroom acoustics and school teachers’ noise exposure, voice load and speaking time during teaching, and the effects on vocal and mental fatigue development. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2014; 87: 851–860.
3.
Shield B, Dockrell JE: External and internal noise surveys of London primary schools. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 115: 730–738.
4.
Rantala LM, Hakala S, Holmqvist S, Sala E: Classroom noise and teachers’ voice production. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2015; 58: 1397–1406.
5.
Smolander S, Huttunen K: Voice problems experienced by Finnish comprehensive school teachers and realization of occupational health care. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 2006; 31: 166–171.
6.
Mattiske JA, Oates JM, Greenwood KM: Vocal problems among teachers: a review of prevalence, causes, prevention, and treatment. J Voice 1998; 12: 489–499.
7.
Lyberg Åhlander V, Haake M, Brannstrom J, Schotz S, Sahlen B: Does the speaker’s voice quality influence children’s performance on a language comprehension test? Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2015; 17: 63–73.
8.
Schmidt P, Morrow SL: Hoarse with no name: chronic voice problems, policy and music teacher marginalisation. Music Educ Res 2016; 18: 109–126.
9.
Behar A, MacDonald E, Lee J, Cui J, Kunov H, Wong W: Noise exposure of music teachers. J Occup Environ Hyg 2004; 1: 243–247.
10.
Lane H, Tranel B: The Lombard sign and the role of hearing in speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1971; 14: 677–709.
11.
Ternström S, Södersten M, Bohman M: Cancellation of simulated environmental noise as a tool for measuring vocal performance during noise exposure. J Voice 2002; 16: 195–206.
12.
Södersten M, Ternström S, Bohman M: Loud speech in realistic environmental noise: phonetogram data, perceptual voice quality, subjective ratings, and gender differences in healthy speakers. J Voice 2005; 19: 29–46.
13.
Lindström F, Waye KP, Södersten M, McAllister A, Ternström S: Observations of the relationship between noise exposure and preschool teacher voice usage in day-care center environments. J Voice 2011; 25: 166–172.
14.
Lyberg Åhlander V, Pelegrín García D, Whitling S, Rydell R, Löfqvist A: Teachers’ voice use in teaching environments: a field study using ambulatory phonation monitor. J Voice 2014; 28: 841.e5–e15.
15.
Rantala L, Vilkman E, Bloigu R: Voice changes during work: subjective complaints and objective measurements for female primary and secondary schoolteachers. J Voice 2002; 16: 344–355.
16.
Simberg S, Sala E, Laine A, Rönnemaa A: A fast and easy screening method for voice disorders among teacher students. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 2001; 26: 10–16.
17.
Whitling S, Rydell R, Lyberg Åhlander V: Design of a clinical vocal loading test with long-time measurement of voice. J Voice 2015; 29: 261.e13–e27.
18.
Olsen WO: Average speech levels and spectra in various speaking/listening conditions. A summary of the Pearson, Bennet, & Finell (1977) report. Am J Audiol 1998; 7: 21–25.
19.
International Organization for Standardization: Ergonomic assessment of speech communication. Part 1: Speech interference level and communication distances for persons with normal hearing capacity in direct communication (SIL method). ISO 9921-1. Geneva, ISO, 1996, pp 1–10.
20.
Cantor Cutiva LC, Puglisi GE, Astolfi A, Carullo A: 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–e8.
21.
Picard M, Bradley JS: Revisiting speech interference in classrooms. Audiology 2001; 40: 221–244.
22.
Echternach M, Nusseck M, Dippold S, Spahn C, Richter B: Fundamental frequency, sound pressure level and vocal dose of a vocal loading test in comparison to a real teaching situation. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014; 271: 3263–3268.
23.
Södersten M, Salomão GL, McAllister A, Ternström S: Natural voice use in patients with voice disorders and vocally healthy speakers based on 2 days voice accumulator information from a database. J Voice 2015; 29: 646.e1–e9.
24.
Jónsdóttir V, Rantala LM, Oskarsson GK, Sala E: Effects of pedagogical ideology on the perceived loudness and noise levels in preschools. Noise Health 2015; 17: 282–293.
25.
Pelegrin-Garcia D, Lyberg Åhlander V, Rydell R, Brunskog J, Löfqvist A: Influence of classroom acoustics on the voice levels of teachers with and without voice problems: a field study. Proc Meet Acoust 2010; 11: 1.
26.
Skarlatos D, Manatakis M: Effects of classroom noise on students and teachers in Greece. Percept Mot Skills 2003; 96: 539–544.
27.
Sarantopoulos G, Lykoudis S, Kassomenos P: Noise levels in primary schools of medium sized city in Greece. Sci Total Environ 2014; 482–483: 493–500.
28.
Manlove EE, Frank T, Vernon-Feagans L: Why should we care about noise in classrooms and child care settings? Child Youth Care Forum 2001; 30: 55–64.
29.
Crandell CC, Smaldino JJ: Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and with hearing impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2000; 31: 362–370.
30.
Rantala LM, Sala E: Effects of classroom acoustics on teachers’ voices. Build Acoust 2015; 22: 243–258.
31.
Shield B, Greenland E, Dockrell J: Noise in open plan classrooms in primary schools: a review. Noise Health 2010; 12: 225–234.
32.
Kuuskorpi M, Gonzáles NC: Physical learning environments: learning in the future; in Kuuskorpi M (ed): Perspectives from Finland – towards New Learning Environments. Tampere, Finnish National Board of Education, 2014, pp 63–77.
33.
Sulonen J, Sulonen K: The grammar of a modern school building. A comparative study on schools and the changing ways of learning; in Kuuskorpi M (ed): Perspectives from Finland – towards New Learning Environments. Tampere, Finnish National Board of Education, 2014, pp 78–101.
34.
Remacle A, Finck C, Roche A, Morsomme D: Vocal impact of a prolonged reading task at two intensity levels: objective measurements and subjective self-ratings. J Voice 2012; 26:e177–e186.
35.
Laukkanen A, Ilomäki I, Leppänen K, Vilkman E: Acoustic measures and self-reports of vocal fatigue by female teachers. J Voice 2008; 22: 283–289.
36.
Rantala L, Lindholm P, Vilkman E: F0 change due to voice loading under laboratory and field conditions. A pilot study. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 1998; 23: 164–168.
37.
Vintturi J, Alku P, Lauri E, Sala E, Sihvo M, Vilkman E: Objective analysis of vocal warm-up with special reference to ergonomic factors. J Voice 2001; 15: 36–53.
38.
Boersma P, Weenink D: Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. 2014, Version 5.3.79. http://www.praat.org/.
39.
Oliveira G, Davidson A, Holczer R, Kaplan S, Paretzky A: A comparison of the use of glottal fry in the spontaneous speech of young and middle-aged American women. J Voice 2016; 30: 684–687.
40.
Colton RH, Casper JK, Leonard R: Understanding Voice Problems. A Physiological Perspective for Diagnosis and Treatment, ed 3. Philadelphia, Lippincot Williams & Wilkins, 2006, pp 83, 394.
41.
Lehto L, Laaksonen L, Vilkman E, Alku P: Occupational voice complaints and objective acoustic measurements – do they correlate? Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 2006; 31: 147–152.
42.
Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Festen JM, Mahieu HF: Deviant vocal fold vibration as observed during videokymography: the effect on voice quality. J Voice 2001; 15: 313–322.
43.
Vilkman E, Lauri E, Alku P, Sala E, Sihvo M: Effects of prolonged oral reading on F0, SPL, subglottal pressure and amplitude characteristics of glottal flow waveforms. J Voice 1999; 13: 303–312.
44.
Costa MMB, Maliska C: A new hypothesis for fluidification of vocal-fold mucus: scintigraphic study. J Voice 2012; 26: 276–279.
45.
Bonilha HS, White L, Kuckhahn K, Gerlach TT, Deliyski DD: Vocal fold mucus aggregation in persons with voice disorders. J Commun Disord 2012; 45: 304–311.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.