Journal of Voice

Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 137-145

© 2000 Singular Publishing Group

The Role of Knowledge of Results in Performance

and Learning of a Voice Motor Task

Kimberly Steinhauer and Judith Preston Grayhack

Department of Communication Science and Disorders
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Summary: The relationship between the provision of Knowledge of Results

and the performance and learning of a voice motor task was examined. Thir-
ty adult subjects, randomly assigned to a 100%, 50%, or No Knowledge of
Results group, practiced a novel vowel nasalization task. Measures of accura-
cy and variability obtained during the practice session indicated influence of
knowledge of results schedule on the transient effects of motor performance.
Deviations from the nasalance target during the retention phase, 5 minutes lat-
er, and during a transfer phase, 24 hours later, indicated influence of knowl-
edge of results schedule on the permanent effects of motor learning. Collec-
tive results revealed that an increase in relative frequency of knowledge of
results led to a decrease in motor performance and learning of a vowel nasal-
ization task: Both accuracy and variability were degraded as knowledge of re-
sults increased, with those subjects in the 100% group exhibiting the poorest
scores. Key Words: Knowledge of Results--Practice--Nasalance

Singing teachers and voice therapists deal with im-
proving human performance and facilitating learning
through permanent behavioral changes. It is critical
to understand how variables such as task and prac-
tice impact the acquisition of new motor patterns.
This investigation addresses the relationship be-
tween a practice strategy using Knowledge of Results
(KR) and motor acquisition and retention of a voice
motor task, vowel nasalance. The purpose of the
study was to determine the effect of manipulating
Accepted for publication April 20, 1999.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Kimberly
Steinhauer, Department of Communication Science and Disor-
ders, 4033 Forbes Tower, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,
PA 15260 USA
Presented at the Twenty-Seventh Annual Symposium: Care
of the Professional Voice; June 2, 1998; Philadelphia, PA
relative frequency of KR on performance and learn-
ing of a vowel nasalization task as measured by a
nasalance score.
Feedback, sensory information about a move-
ment, remains second in importance only to prac-
tice as a variable influencing motor skill acquisi-
tion.I, 2 Voice researchers have explored the
contribution of auditory feedback to voice motor
control, 3 but have been less attentive to the role of
extrinsic, augmented feedback in voice motor skill
acquisition. 4 Due to the complexity of studying in-
trinsic feedback, motor learning researchers have
concentrated on manipulating variables of extrinsic
feedback such as KR. 1,5-10 KR is verbal, or verbal-
izable, terminal augmented feedback about the out-
come or nature of the result in terms of the environ-
mental goal (eg, "The target was 80, your score was

137
138 KIMBERLY STEINHAUER AND JUDITH PRESTON GRAYHACK
72."). Relative frequency of KR refers to the per-
centage of trials in which KR is offered.
Within the confines of a motor learning experi-
ment, subjects practice on a selected motor task, and
then progress is documented as a function of prac-
tice trial. Salmoni, Schmidt, and Walter advocated
distinguishing between KR effects on performance
and KR effects on learning. 1 Performance effects
typically measured during the acquisition phase are
considered as temporary or transient changes. Learn-
ing effects measured during retention and transfer
phases are considered as permanent changes.
Variables such as motivation and fatigue that ac-
company the provision of KR during acquisition
have been found to contaminate motor learning re-
sults; therefore, Salmoni et al 1 suggested measuring
motor learning via a retention design in which all
groups are treated to a common level of the indepen-
dent variable, usually no KR, following the acquisi-
tion phase. In addition, transfer designs that include
a shift of the task or target as a powerful indicator of
motor learning were advocated. The most com-
pelling results of studies of motor learning have been
those in which retention and transfer tests were ad-
ministered after the performance effects dissipat-
e d - r a n g i n g from as little as 5 minutes to 5 days, or
5 months postacquisition.1
Theories of motor learning underscore different
roles for KR during motor skill learning. Properties
of motivation, guidance, and association have been
examined as possible explanations for the function
of KR during motor learning.l, 2,8 Schmidt's open-
loop schema theory and guidance hypothesis are
founded on movement categories or schemas (ie,
ball pitching or pitch elevation) that are governed by
a stored, generalized motor program (GMP) con-
taining specific parameters for that action. 2,H Stud-
ies conducted within the context of Schmidt's theory
showed an inverse relationship between relative fre-
quency of KR and motor learning, regardless of the
KR schedule (ie, after alternating trials, after trial
block, or faded throughout practice). Increases in
relative frequency of KR resulted in degraded learn-
ing effects during retention and transfer. 1,12-14 In ad-
dition, increases in relative frequency of KR in-
creased motor performance during acquisition; 1
however, other investigations reported that an in-
Journal of Voice, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2000
crease in relative frequency of KR failed to produce
a performance effect during acquisition.12, ~4
The alternative to the prescriptive theory of motor
control and learning lies in the dynamical systems
approach that describes humans as self-organizing
systems capable of movement through an emergent
result of changes in coordinative structures governed
by underlying physical, synergetic, or ecological
principles. 15,16 In the emergent context, motor learn-
ing is viewed as the integration of new coordination
patterns or synergies on the background of preexist-
ing patterns called intrinsic dynamics. 16-L8 Swinnen
suggests that KR acts to either exploit or suppress
the learner's intrinsic dynamics during practice. 18
Although KR has been used to describe the "to be
learned" pattern, ~9 specific predictions about the fre-
quency of KR have not been addressed due to the re-
cent incorporation of motor learning into the dynam-
ical theories of motor control.
Regardless of the theoretical genesis, many studies
have documented relationships between limb motor
learning and relative frequency of KR; 20 however,
few investigations have examined the impact of
practice with KR on voice production. Ferrand ex-
plored the relationship between KR and phonatory
stability, as indexed by jitter and shimmer. 4 Two
groups of subjects practiced sustaining a n / a / f o r 2
seconds. The KR group received information on
every trial about the waveform and jitter/shimmer
values. A second group received no KR. Results of
the transfer session, held 1 week after practice, re-
vealed no difference between groups for either shim-
mer or jitter measurements, indicating no relation-
ship between providing KR and permanent changes
in phonatory stability.
The disparate results within the limb and voice KR
literature motivated this research project designed to
determine the influence of KR on learning a voice
motor task integral to optimal voice resonance. The
percept nasality is modulated to some degree by
varying the size of the velopharyngeal port, as well
as the entire oral cavity. Volitional modification of
nasality is a common goal among singers and speak-
ers across most voice quality productions but novel
to voice producers when practiced in isolation, thus
providing a unique task upon which to test voice
motor learning.
 THE ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE OF RESULTS IN PERFORMANCE AND LEARNING OF A VOICE
Although proprioceptive innervation of the
velopharyngeal sphincter is limited, 21 volitional con-
trol of nasality has been documented.22, 23 Moon and
Jones demonstrated dynamical properties of the
velopharynx through a study in which 10 subjects
successfully produced b o t h / a / a n d / i / a t 50% and
75% nasality using simultaneous phototransduction
to provide visual feedback. 22 Results showed that
success at achieving the target was attributable to
plasticity (learning) or flexibility (success without
learning), two mechanisms of dynamical motor
learning described by Folkins. 24 Plasticity referred
to a restructuring of the physiological rule system
that occurs during practice. Flexibility referred to an
existing rule system confined to parameters of the
coordinative structure that accounts for success at a
novel task without practice.
In singing instruction,25, 26 cleft palate rehabilita-
tion, 22 and resonant voice therapy 27 clients are asked
to exploit nasality to alter articulation and resonance
properties of the vocal tract. Therefore, the aim of
this study was to test the effects of manipulating the
relative frequency of KR (100%, 50%, and no KR)
during learning of a vowel nasalization task, as esti-
mated by nasalance score. Results from the study
will be interpreted within the context of Schmidt's 11
schema theory predicting differential effects of KR
on performance and learning and Folkin's 24 theory
predicting a possibility of no effect of KR on perfor-
mance and learning due to the dynamical properties
of coordinative structures.
METHODS
Subjects
Thirty subjects (20 women, 10 men) between the
ages of 18 and 40 years were selected from the stu-
dent population at the University of Pittsburgh for
the study. All subjects were required to have a nega-
tive history for speech deficits, and to pass a hearing
screening at 20 dB SPL. The racial, gender, and eth-
nic characteristics of the proposed subject popula-
tion reflected the demographics of Pittsburgh and the
surrounding area.
Subjects were required to test within nasalance
norms for the Zoo Passage as measured by the Kay
Elemetrics Nasometer. All subjects were native
speakers of English and vocally untrained, that is,
139
had participated in less than five private speak-
ing/singing lessons. The subjects were healthy non-
smokers, experiencing no upper respiratory or sinus
infections, and free of alcohol and medications that
have the potential to compromise normal voice mo-
tor control. The subjects remained naive to the spe-
cific purposes of the experiment, had no previous ex-
posure to the experimental vocal task, and were not
significantly different in their baseline performance
of the task.
Apparatus
The Kay Elemetrics Nasometer, a computer-assist-
ed instrument, facilitated measurement of nasalance
over time. The Nasometer is a noninvasive input de-
vice consisting of two directional microphones and a
sound separator plate. The calculated nasalance
score is a ratio of nasal to oral plus nasal acoustic en-
ergy for each subject. KR as nasalance score ap-
peared on the computer monitor. The dynamic range
of the Nasometer is 50 dB, thus ensuring accurate
data collection on a wide range of voice intensities.
Task
Acquisition~Retention
The subjects were required to nasalize a sustained
vowel ( / i / - - > / t / ) . To ensure stable and volitional
control, each trial was 6 seconds in duration--2 sec-
onds of oral phonation before switching to nasal for
the final 4 seconds. Target nasalance score for the
oral vowel was between 0% and 40%, and the target
score for the nasalized vowel was 80%. Subjects
proceeded with the task only after achieving the ini-
tial target for the oral vowel.
Transfer
The transfer task required the subjects to perform
the identical task Using a new vowel,/a/.
Experimental design and procedure
Acquisition
Thirty subjects were assigned randomly to three
groups of feedback (100% KR, 50% KR, No KR).
KR as percent nasalance was administered to the
subjects via a computer monitor. Subjects in the
100% KR group received immediate information af-
Journal of Voice, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2000
140 KIMBERLY STEINHAUER AND JUDITH PRESTON GRAYHACK
ter every trial. The 50% KR group received immedi-
ate information after every other trial. The No KR
group was not permitted to view the monitor.
During initiation of the session, the experimenter
provided instructions and demonstrations involving
the task and apparatus. Using the nasometer, sub-
jects practiced on four trials using a different vowel,
/if, and a different nasalance target, 65%. All sub-
jects received information in the form of nasalance
score and received a countdown to prepare, initiate,
and change the vocalization. Motor performance
was examined during the acquisition phase consist-
ing of 5 blocks of 8 trials. All subjects filled the 2-
second intertrial interval with counting by twos or
threes in order to control for mental rehearsing.
Retention~transfer
Learning was examined during a retention and
transfer phase in which all subjects moved to a com-
mon level of the independent variable, No KR. The
immediate retention phase, 5 minutes following ac-
quisition, consisted of 2 blocks of 8 trials using the
identical task. The transfer phase, 1 day after acqui-
sition, consisted of 2 blocks of 8 trials using the
transfer vowel/a/.
Data collection and statistical considerations
The effect of the independent variable, KR relative
frequency, was measured using the dependent vari-
able, nasalance score. The central 2 seconds of the
total nasal utterance (4 seconds in duration) were
used for analysis to ensure stability of the target
nasalized vowel. Performance effects were measured
during the acquisition phase, and learning effects
were measured during retention and transfer phases.
Three dependent measures sensitive to changes in
accuracy and variability 2 were calculated. Absolute
error (AE) is the average absolute deviation between
the subject's responses and the target:
AE - i=l
Ixi- sl
rt
Absolute constant error (/CE/) is the average error
in responding to the target and represents the accura-
Journal of Voice, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2000
cy and bias in the directional measures of average
magnitude of response:
• (x i - T)
/ C E / = i=l _
12
Variable error (VE) is the variability of the subject
about the mean response and is a measure of intra-
individual response consistency:
t ~ (Xi _ .~)2
VE = i=1
The acquisition data were analyzed in a 3 × 5
(Group × Block) ANOVA with repeated measures
on the last factor. For both retention and transfer
tests, the 16 trials were collapsed into one block and
analyzed in univariate ANOVAs (group as the inde-
pendent variable). Alpha was set at the .05 level, and
appropriate post hoc tests were performed to elicit
specific group or block differences.
RESULTS
Group mean and standard deviation data for the
dependent measures are listed in Table 1. The depen-
dent measures as a function of trial block on a per-
formance curve depict group differences in Figure 1
(/CE/), and Figure 2 (VE). The Pearson product mo-
ment correlation for accuracy measures AE and
/CE/, r = .98, indicated that the measures were re-
dundant; therefore, o n l y / C E / i s reported as a mea-
sure of accuracy and bias that is independent of
V E ) 2 One outlier with scores consistently 2 stan-
dard deviations from the mean was discarded from
the No KR group.
Acquisition
Results for the/CE/analysis showed a significant
group difference F(2,104 ) = 4.70, P<.05 (Figure 1).
Post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls multiple compar-
isons revealed significant differences between 100%
KR (M = 14.08, SD = 15.18) and 50% KR (M =
4.96, SD = 4.09), and between 100% and no KR (M
= 6.19, SD = 5.21) groups, P<.05. There were no
THE ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE OF RESULTS I N PERFORMANCE AND LEARNING O F A VOICE 141

T A B L E 1. Group Means and Standard Deviatons in %

Nasalance for Feedback Group

Acquisition Retention Transfer

100% KR
/CE/ 14.08 (15.18)* 8.61 (6.58) 25.20 (16.82)*
VE 7.70 (6.76) 7.10 (4.90)* 6.94 (4.04)
50% KR
/CE/ 4.96 (4.09)* 5.63 (4.15) 12.20 (5.64)*
VE 5.77 (5.81) 3.80 (2.40)* 6.13 (3.48)
No KR
/CE/ 6.19 (5.21)* 6.19 (5.21) 14.57 (7.55)
VE 5.29 (5.54) 3.60 (0.70)* 6.95 (6.89)
Mean (Standard Deviation) *P <.05

/CE/

30
25
~ 20 ¢ N o KR
,,~ 15 --m-- 50% KR
~ 10 ~100%KR
5
0 I t I I I I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 ret trans
Block
F I G 1. Group mean five-block absolute constant error (/CE/) scores in % nasalance for
acquisition (Block 1-5), retention (ret), and transfer (trans).

VE

12
10
8 ; N o KR

tU 6 -- 50% KR
>
4 100% KR
2
0 I I I I I I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 ret trans
Block
F I G 2. Group mean five-block variable error (VE) scores in % nasalance for acquisition
(Block 1-5), retention (ret), and transfer (trans).

Journal of Voice, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2000

142 K I MB E R LY STEINHAUER AND JUDITH PRESTON GRAYHACK
other main effects or interactions. The group differ-
ences in/CE/indicate that accuracy to the nasalance
target was enhanced by decreasing the relative fre-
quency or withholding KR, with 100% KR leading
to detrimental decreases in accuracy.
Results for the VE analysis showed significant
block differences across KR conditions in the acqui-
sition phase, F(4,104 ) = 2.62, P<.05 (Figure 2). Post
hoc Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons
revealed significant differences between Block 1
(100% K R M = 11.09, SD = 8.27; 50% KR M =
7.17, SD = 6.27; No KR M = 8.03, SD = 9.19) and
Block 5, (100% KR M = 6.51, SD = 3.75; 50% KR
M = 3.50, SD = 1.21; No KR M = 3.68, SD = 1.63),
P<05. There were no other main effects or interac-
tions. The block difference in VE indicates that vari-
ability about the subject's nasalance mean was de-
creased by practice from Block 1 to Block 5.
Retention
Differences in /CE/ measures were not great
enough to elicit significant results; however, results
for the VE analysis showed significant feedback dif-
ferences in the retention phase, F(2,26) = 3.62, P<.05
(Figure 3). Post hoc Dunnett's multiple comparisons
revealed significant differences between 100% KR
( M = 7.10, SD = 4.90) and 50% KR ( M = 3.80, SD =
2.40) and between 100% KR and no KR (M = 3.60,
SD = .70) groups, P<.05. The group differences in
VE indicate that variability about the subject's
nasalance mean was reduced by decreasing the rela-
tive frequency or withholding KR, with 100% KR
leading to detrimental increases in variability.
Transfer
Results of the/CE/analysis indicated significant
group differences for the Transfer phase F(2,26/ --
4.06, P<.05 (Figure 2). Post hoc Student-Newman-
Keuls multiple comparisons revealed significant dif-
ferences between 100% KR (M = 25.2, SD = 16.82)
and 50% KR (M = 12.2, SD = 5.64) groups, P<.05.
The group differences for/CE/indicate that accura-
cy to the nasalance target was enhanced by decreas-
ing the relative frequency or withholding KR, with
100% KR leading to detrimental decreases in accu-
racy. No significant differences were observed for
VE measures.
Journal of Voice, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2000
DISCUSSION
The aim of the present study was to explore the ef-
fect of relative frequency of KR on the motor perfor-
mance and learning of a vowel nasalization task. The
results showed that an increase in relative frequency
of KR led to a decrease in both motor performance
and learning of a vowel nasalization task; however,
the results revealed a curious departure from the
limb motor learning literature in that No KR proved
as beneficial as 50% KR.
The group differences in target accuracy (/CE/)
during the acquisition phase indicate that tempo-
rary effects of motor performance were enhanced
by decreasing the relative frequency to 50% or
withholding KR, with 100% KR leading to detri-
mental decreases in motor performance of a vowel
nasalization task. These results are inconsistent with
past studies testing Schmidt's schema theory ~ that
predict increased motor performance with increased
KR; however, the results of this study are consistent
with more recent studies in which increased KR de-
creased or exhibited no effect on motor perfor-
mance.12,14
Similar group differences in target accuracy (/CE/)
were observed in the transfer phase, indicating that
permanent effects of motor learning were enhanced
by decreasing the relative frequency to 50% KR,
with 100% KR leading to detrimental decreases in
motor learning of a vowel nasalization task. These
results are consistent with Schmidt's schema theo-
ry 11 (and collaborative studies) that predict increased
motor learning with decreased relative frequency of
KR.1,12-14,20
Results of the variability measure (VE) exhibited a
different pattern for acquisition and retention. The
block difference between Block 1 and Block 5 dur-
ing acquisition reveals that practice, not amount of
KR, was the most important indicator for reducing
variability during motor performance of a vowel
nasalization task. The group difference during reten-
tion reveals that amount of KR was the most impor-
tant indicator for reducing variability in motor learn-
ing: Decreasing the relative frequency to 50% or
withholding KR enhanced motor learning, with
100% KR leading to detrimental decreases in motor
learning of a vowel nasalization task.
 THE ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE OF RESULTS IN PERFORMANCE AND LEARNING OF A VOICE
Often overlooked in favor of accuracy measures,
reductions in variability are of paramount impor-
tance as indicators of enhanced subject stability, thus
motor learning.Z, 19 All subjects in this study became
more consistent with practice during acquisition, but
during retention, an indicator of motor learning,
those subjects who received 50% or no KR were
more consistent than subjects receiving 100% KR.
As stated previously in the discussion of accuracy
during transfer, the variability results of this study
are consistent with those conducted within the con-
text of Schmidt's schema theory of motor learning.11
The following explanations for the present result,
that 100% KR degrades both accuracy and variabili-
ty of motor performance and learning, have been
postulated:2°,29, 30 (1) KR may become so integrated
into the task that performance may be disrupted
when KR is withdrawn. (2) Increased KR as extrin-
sic feedback may prevent subjects from attending to
their own intrinsic feedback. Subjects may overfacil-
itate planning of the next movement and negate en-
gaging in self-generated retrieval operations. (3) A
high-frequency KR schedule may lead subjects to
produce excessive response variability during prac-
tice or maladaptive short-term corrections, thus pre-
venting the development of a stable movement rep-
resentation or motor program.
Maladaptive corrections occur in situations where
the motor system is successful at obtaining the target
but not capable of exact precision due to neuromus-
cular variability. Perhaps the target of 80% nasalance
was too precise for the subjects to master, and a
range of 75% to 85% nasalance would have been
more accessible. The maladaptive correction theory
could also explain why the jitter and shimmer values
in Ferrand remained unresponsive to differences in
the provision of KR. 4
Although findings that 100% KR leads to de-
creased motor learning are common, 20 less common
are results similar to the present study in which a
group receiving No KR performed as well as a group
receiving information. Results of accuracy measures
in acquisition (Figure 1) and variability measures
during retention (Figure 2) reveal that groups receiv-
ing 50% and No KR performed similarly.
An explanation for the similarity of 50% and No
KR groups lies in dynamical theories of motor con-
143
trol. 15,24 Moon and Jones reported evidence of suc-
cess without learning as subjects achieved the novel
task of velopharyngeal closure on first attempts. 22 In
the context of Folkins, 24 they attributed this success
as compatible with the function of forced-variation
flexibility during motor learning involving coordina-
tive structures. Folkins contends "when a rule sys-
tem is set up through a coordinative structure, it is
not necessary to go through an adaptation process to
find novel solutions fitting the coordinative struc-
ture."24(pl12)
In the present study, it is possible that the target of
80% lies in the optimal range of nasalance for the
production of the vowel / 7/, rendering KR futile for
successful completion of the task; however, too much
information, as in the case of 100% KR, was so pow-
erful that it interfered with the optimal movement of
the nasalization coordinative structure during both
performance and learning phases. Similar results
were obtained during experiments in which subjects
were provided with erroneous KR that overrode cor-
rect sensory feedback to diminish target accuracy. 6
Remaining in the dynamical context, it is possible
to explain the decreased accuracy and increased vari-
ability of producing the v o w e l / a / a t 80% nasalance
during the transfer phase (Figure 1). Moon and Jones
reported that the v o w e l / a / w a s more accurately pro-
duced at 50% closure than the vowel/i/. 22 Although
the acoustic nasalance score is once removed from
closure percents of phototransduction, it appears as
if the vowel/a/is more optimally nasalized at a low-
er percent than the vowel/i/. These results also are
consistent with acoustic and perceptual data showing
characteristic patterns of nasality on the basis of
tongue height for the v o w e l s / i / a n d / a / ) ~,32 Due to
tongue height, the nasalization o f / i / r e q u i r e d less
coupling with the nasal cavity than that required for
a nasalized production of the vowel/a/.
Finally, a second explanation for the similar be-
havior of the No KR to the 50% K R group lies in
methodological limitations of the study. The sample
could have been too small to elicit the group differ-
ences. It is possible that auditory feedback provided
enough information to guide the learners to the cor-
rect target; however, control of the auditory feedback
loop was maintained by using only those subjects
who did not receive formal voice or singing training.
Journal of Voice, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2000
 144 KIMBERLY STEINHAUER AND JUDITH PRESTON GRAYHACK
Also although group assignment was randomized, it
is possible that the more proficient subjects were as-
signed to the No KR and 50% KR groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Collective results indicate a relationship between
relative frequency of KR and motor performance
and learning of a vowel nasalization task. An in-
crease in relative frequency of KR to 100% degraded
both motor performance and learning as indexed by
accuracy and variability measures. In acquisition, re-
tention, and transfer, both accuracy (/CE/) and vari-
ability (VE) diminished as KR increased, with 100%
KR groups exhibiting the poorest scores; however,
there were minimal or no differences between
groups receiving 50% or No KR. The detrimental ef-
fects of providing a high frequency of KR have been
documented and are consistent within the context of
Schmidt's schema theory.20, % Success at executing a
voice motor goal with minimal or no KR has been
documented and is consistent within the context of
dynamical systems theory.22, 24 Further study incor-
porating auditory masking of trained and untrained
subjects could provide additional evidence for the
power of KR during voice motor skill acquisition.
Also, future research to more discretely examine the
theoretical issues of the prescriptive and dynamical
systems as they pertain to KR and voice motor con-
trol is warranted.
REFERENCES
1. Salmoni AW, Schmidt RA, Walter CB. Knowledge of re-
sults and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal.
Psychological Bull, 1984;95:355-386.
2. Schmidt RA. Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral
Emphasis. 2nd ed. Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics; 1988.
3. Buruett TA, Freedland MB, Larson CR, Hain TC. Voice
FO responses to manipulations in pitch feedback. JAcoust
Soc Am. 1998;103:3139-3152.
4. Ferrand CT. Effects of practice with and without knowl-
edge of results on jitter and shimmer levels in normally
speaking women. J Voice. 1995;9:419-423.
5. Bennet DM, Simmons RW. Effects of precision of knowl-
edge of results on acquisition and retention of a simple
motor skill. Percept Motor Skills. 1984;58:785-786.
6. Buckers MJ, Magill RA. The role of task experience and
prior knowledge for detecting invalid augmented feedback
while learning a motor skill. Q J Exp Psychol. 1995;48A:
84-97.
Journal of Voice, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2000
7. Feltz DL, Landers DM, Becker BJ. A revised meta-analy-
sis of the mental practice literature on motor skill learning.
In: Druckman D, Swet J, eds. Enhancing Human Perfor-
mance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press; 1988:61-101.
8. Lee TD, Swinnen SR Serrien DJ. Cognitive effort and mo-
tor learning. Quest. 1994;46:328-344.
9. Lee TD, White MA, Carnahan H. On the role of knowl-
edge of results in motor learning: exploring the guidance
hypothesis. J Motor Behav. 1990;22:191-208.
10. Wulf G, Horstmann G, Choi B. Does mental practice work
like physical practice without information feedback? Res
Q Exerc Sport. 1995;66:262-267.
11. Schmidt RA. A schema theory of discrete motor skill
learning. Psychol Rev. 1975;82(4):225-260.
12. Winstein CJ, Schmidt RA. Reduced frequency of knowl-
edge of results enhances motor skill learning. J Exp Psy-
chol. 1990;16:677-691.
13. Wulf G. The learning of generalized motor programs and
motor schemata: Effects of KR relative frequency and
contextual interference. J Hum Movement Stud. 1992;23:
53-76.
14. Wulf G, Schmidt RA. The learning of generalized motor
programs: Reducing the relative frequency of knowledge
of results enhances memory. J Exp Psychol. 1989;15:748-
757.
15. Kelso JA, Tuller B. A dynamical basis for action systems.
In: Gazzaniga M, ed. Handbook of Cognitive Neuro-
science. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1984:321-356.
16. Wallace SA. Dynamic pattern perspective of rhythmic
movement: an introduction. In: Zelaznik HN, ed. Ad-
vances in Motor Learning and Control. Champaign, Ill:
Human Kinetics; 1996:155-194.
17. Newell KM. Motor skill acquisition. Ann Rev Psychol.
1991;42:213-237.
18. Swinnen SR Information feedback for motor skill learn-
ing: a review. In: Zelaznik HN, ed. Advances in Motor
Learning and Control. Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics;
1996:37-66.
19. Schoner G, Zanone PG, Kelso JAS. Learning as change of
coordination dynamics: Theory and experiment. J Motor
Behav. 1992;24:29-48.
20. Schmidt RA, Bjork RA. New conceptualizations of prac-
tice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new
concepts for training. Psychol Sci. 1992;3(4):207-217.
21. Kuehn DR Lemme ML, Banmgartner JM. Neural Bases of
Speech, Hearing and Language. Boston, Mass: College-
Hill Press; 1989.
22. Moon JB, Jones DL. Motor control of velopharyngeal
structures during vowel production. Cleft Palate-Cranio-
fac J. 1991;28:267-273.
23. Moon JB, Smith AE, Folkins JW, Lemke JG, Gartlan M.
Coordination of velopharyngeal muscle activity during po-
sitioning of the soft palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. 1994;
31:45-55.
 THE ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE OF RESULTS IN PERFORMANCE AND LEARNING OF A VOICE
24. Folkins JW. Issues in speech motor control and their rela-
tion to the speech of individuals with cleft palate. Cleft
Palate J. 1985;22(2):106-122.
25. Austin SE Movement of the velum during speech and singing
in classically trained singers. J Voice. 1997;11(2):212-221.
26. Vennard W. Singing: The Mechanism and the Technic.
New York, NY: Carl Fischer; 1967.
27. Verdolini-Marston K, Burke MK, Lessac A, Glaze L,
Caldwell E. Preliminary study of two methods of treat-
ment for laryngeal nodules. J Voice. 1995;9:74-85.
28. Schmidt RA. Frequent augmented feedback can degrade
learning: evidence and interpretations. In: Requin J, Stel-
145
mach GE, eds. Tutorials in Motor Neuroscience. Nether-
lands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1991.
29. Lee TD, Maraj BKV. Effects of bandwidth goals and
bandwidth knowledge of results on motor learning. Res Q
Exer Sport. 1994;65(3):244-249.
30. Wulf G, Lee TD, Schmidt RA. Reducing knowledge of re-
sults about relative versus absolute timing: differential ef-
fects on learning. JMotorBehav. 1994;26:362-369.
31. House AS, Stevens KN. Analog studies of the nasalization
of vowels. J Speech Hearing Disord. 1956;21:218-232.
32. Fant G. Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. The
Hague: Mouton; 1960.
Journal of Voice, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2000