Débora Franco1, Isabel Fragoso2, Mário Andrea3, Júlia Teles2, Fernando Martins4. 1. School of Health Sciences, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Leiria, Portugal; Centro de Linguística (CLUL), University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal. Electronic address: debora.franco@hotmail.com. 2. Centro Interdisciplinar de Estudo da Performance Humana (CIPER), University of Lisbon, Cruz Quebrada-Lisbon, Portugal; Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Lisbon, Cruz Quebrada-Lisbon, Portugal. 3. Faculty of Medicine of Lisbon, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal. 4. Centro de Linguística (CLUL), University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal; Faculty of Letters, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Voice quality provides information about the anatomical characteristics of the speaker. The patterns of somatotype and body composition can provide essential knowledge to characterize the individuality of voice quality. The aim of this study was to verify if there were significant differences in somatotype and body composition between normal and dysphonic speakers. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Anthropometric measurements were taken of a sample of 72 adult participants (40 normal speakers and 32 dysphonic speakers) according to International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry standards, which allowed the calculation of endomorphism, mesomorphism, ectomorphism components, body density, body mass index, fat mass, percentage fat, and fat-free mass. Perception and acoustic evaluations as well as nasoendoscopy were used to assign speakers into normal or dysphonic groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between normal and dysphonic speakers in the mean somatotype attitudinal distance and somatotype dispersion distance (in spite of marginally significant differences [P < 0.10] in somatotype attitudinal distance and somatotype dispersion distance between groups) and in the mean vector of the somatotype components. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between groups concerning the mean of percentage fat, fat mass, fat-free mass, body density, and body mass index after controlling by sex. CONCLUSION: The findings suggested no significant differences in the somatotype and body composition variables, between normal and dysphonic speakers.
OBJECTIVE: Voice quality provides information about the anatomical characteristics of the speaker. The patterns of somatotype and body composition can provide essential knowledge to characterize the individuality of voice quality. The aim of this study was to verify if there were significant differences in somatotype and body composition between normal and dysphonic speakers. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Anthropometric measurements were taken of a sample of 72 adult participants (40 normal speakers and 32 dysphonic speakers) according to International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry standards, which allowed the calculation of endomorphism, mesomorphism, ectomorphism components, body density, body mass index, fat mass, percentage fat, and fat-free mass. Perception and acoustic evaluations as well as nasoendoscopy were used to assign speakers into normal or dysphonic groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between normal and dysphonic speakers in the mean somatotype attitudinal distance and somatotype dispersion distance (in spite of marginally significant differences [P < 0.10] in somatotype attitudinal distance and somatotype dispersion distance between groups) and in the mean vector of the somatotype components. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between groups concerning the mean of percentage fat, fat mass, fat-free mass, body density, and body mass index after controlling by sex. CONCLUSION: The findings suggested no significant differences in the somatotype and body composition variables, between normal and dysphonic speakers.