Contact quotient versus closed quotient: a multifactorial comparison

Closed quotient (Q (Q identical measures. However, quite different values of these two parameters can be found for identical phonatory conditions in previous studies. For example, Howard (1995) has found that Q relation with fundamental frequency (F0) in trained, but not in untrained female singers’ voices. On the other hand, it has also been showed that the closed quotient Q untrained female voices was lower at high than at low F0 (Sundberg, Fahlstedt & Morell, 2005). Moreover, Q depending on the percentage of the peak-topeak amplitude of the EGG signal that is considered as defining the closed quotient (Herbst & Ternström, 2006). The present investigation aims to: (i) clarify the relation between Q identify phonatory factors that may affect them. Audio, electrolaryngograph, oral pressure and air flow were simultaneously recorded for five male singers. They were asked to repeat the syllable [pae] in diminuendo at various pitches. Q flow signal, whereas Q from electrolaryngography, using the Decap and SpeechStudio softwares, respectively. Oral pressure during /p/ occlusion was measured as an estimate of subglottal pressure (Psub). Several phonatory parameters were determined (i.e. F0, normalized amplitude quotient (NAQ) and the dominance of the fundamental (H1-H2)). Their correlations with the above measures were also analyzed. Q correlation, even though Q higher than Q with Psub was observed for both; however, this variation was smaller for Q Q the same phonatory parameters. Possible reasons for these differences will be discussed.closed) and contact quotientcontact) have sometimes been regarded ascontact showed a positive linearclosed incontact can be measured differently,contact and Qcontact, and (ii)closed was extracted by inverse filtering thecontact was measuredcontact and Qclosed showed a positivecontact was mostlyclosed. A systematical variationcontact. Bothcontact and Qclosed co-varied with some but not