See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282045442

Aerobic Exercise as a Warm-Up for Singing: Aerodynamic Changes

Article · September 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.08.011

CITATIONS READS
12 332

2 authors:

Monica Mchenry Joseph Evans

New York Medical College University of Houston
46 PUBLICATIONS 878 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 180 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Monica Mchenry on 22 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Aerobic Exercise as a Warm-Up for Singing:
Aerodynamic Changes
*Monica McHenry and †Joseph Evans, *Valhalla, New York, and yHouston, Texas

Summary: Objectives. This study was designed to determine the impact of aerobic exercise on vocal warm-up.
Study design. This is a cohort experimental study.
Methods. Sixteen graduate and six undergraduate students in an academic vocal performance program participated.
They completed a 30-minute treadmill workout in their target aerobic heart range. Aerodynamic data during singing
were acquired before and after the treadmill workout. In full voice, participants sang the first seven notes of the Star
Spangled Banner on ‘‘pah,’’ repeating the seventh note seven times, at 1.5 syllables/s after an inhalation. The key
was determined by voice type, with the target note within the range of passaggio for men, and in head voice for women.
Results. Paired t tests were performed on the data from 17 singers who maintained or increased sound pressure level
(SPL) after exercise. Significant pre- to post-exercise increases were found for mean SPL and mean airflow during voic-
ing, although increased estimated subglottal pressure approached significance. These measures were essentially un-
changed in individuals who decreased SPL after exercise. There was no significant difference in vocal efficiency
after the aerobic exercise, primarily due to large standard deviations within the pre- and post-exercise conditions.
Conclusions. Most participants demonstrated favorable aerodynamic changes during singing after aerobic exercise.
It is possible that in certain situations, a general aerobic warm-up could set the stage for a less-demanding vocal-specific
warm-up, especially for a high voice performing early in the morning.
Key Words: Vocal–Voice–Vocal efficiency–Airflow–Subglottal pressure.

INTRODUCTION with listeners noting significant change in some specific quali-

Classical singing is a complex and demanding act, yet must give
the audience an impression of effortlessness. Although years of
training are required to develop a healthy and efficient vocal
technique, the preparation immediately before performance is
equally important for optimal vocal production. Although per-
formers differ markedly in how they use the time before taking
the stage, preparation typically includes some version of a vocal
warm-up.
Although virtually all performers and voice teachers agree
that vocal warm-up is essential before performing, there is little
consensus regarding either method or purported impact of the
exercise. Some have speculated that singing warm-ups may
function to improve physiology, prepare the singer psycholog-
ically, or simply act as a placebo. Barr1 suggested that the phys-
iological benefits of a warm-up may be crucial to less-trained
voices, with the psychological benefits being greater for more
accomplished performers. He argued that there may be a pla-
cebo effect when the warm-up has no physiological basis, but
the singer nonetheless benefits, perhaps by feeling mentally
ready to perform. Self-perceptions of warm-up may be
deceiving, however. In one study, virtually all singers reported
improvement in qualities such as ‘‘resonant voice sensations,’’
Accepted for publication August 14, 2015.
Portions of this work were presented at the 44th Annual Symposium: Care of the Profes-
sional Voice. Philadelphia, June 2015.
From the *Department of Speech-Language Pathology, School of Health Sciences and
Practice, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York; and the yMoores School of Mu-
sic, University of Houston, Houston, Texas.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Monica McHenry, Department of Speech-
Language Pathology, School of Health Sciences and Practice, New York Medical College,
30 Plaza West, Ste. 213, Valhalla, NY 10595. E-mail: monica_mchenry@nymc.edu
Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, pp. 1-5
0892-1997/$36.00
Ó 2015 The Voice Foundation
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.08.011
ties, but not in the overall rating of ‘‘legit vocal quality.’’2
Contributing to the challenge of interpreting the benefit of
warm-up is the considerable variability in warm-up methods,
highlighted in a survey of nearly 120 singers at different levels
of training.3 Only 53% of the participants reported always
warming up before singing, although another 34% stated they
usually did. It was noted that singers were more likely to
warm up before singing solo than in an ensemble. The duration
of the average warm-up was quite brief, typically 5–10 minutes.
Most of the reported exercises would be considered part of a
traditional vocal warm-up, focusing primarily on vocalizations,
although 21% reported using general aerobic exercise as part of
their warm-up regimen.
The benefits of a traditional vocal warm-up have been docu-
mented in two studies2,4 focusing on acoustic changes. After a
25-minute warm-up, Moorcroft and Kenny2 found greater reg-
ularity and stability in vibrato. The most interesting finding,
however, was the moderating of excessively fast and exces-
sively slow mean vibrato rates. The authors speculated that
warm-up may have a normalizing effect, increasing activation
levels in some, while decreasing excess activation in others. In
the second study of a traditional warm-up,4 participants spent
an average of about 10 minutes performing relaxation,
postural alignment, breathing exercises, and voice production
at varying pitches and dynamic levels. The authors found
post–warm-up improvement in measures of frequency and
amplitude perturbation, as well as the noise-to-harmonics ra-
tio. They argued against a purely vocal warm-up and
concluded that the inclusion of more general exercises target-
ing breathing, posture, and relaxation contributed to the posi-
tive changes. The findings must be interpreted with caution,
however, given the nonsystematic impact of vibrato on acous-
tic measures.5
2 Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, 2015
As an alternative method of warm-up, interest in semioc-
cluded vocal tract exercises continues to grow. These exercises
are thought to facilitate ease of phonation because the back
pressures keep the vocal folds optimally separated. Semioc-
cluded exercises have been compared with a primarily articula-
tory exercise, saying fast rhymes, performed by professional
speakers.6 Both warm-ups were performed relatively briefly
before vocal tract observation with magnetic resonance imag-
ing (MRI), as well as acoustic analysis. After warm-up, both
speakers produced increased sound pressure level (SPL) and
demonstrated a cluster of upper formants. MRI results differed
between subjects who demonstrated laryngeal lowering, and
wider pharyngeal area, respectively. In a second study of semi-
occluded vocal tract exercises, Duke et al7 compared traditional
warm-up such as messa di voce, with phonation of the Star
Spangled Banner through a 5-mm diameter straw for 6 minutes.
The primary dependent variable was the singing power ratio
(SPR), an indication of the relative amplitude of the high-
versus low-frequency resonance peaks. The presence of a
singer’s formant would be indicated by a low SPR. Contrary
to the proposed hypothesis, the investigators found no differ-
ence in SPR after traditional versus semioccluded warm-up in
SPR. It is possible that aerodynamic, rather than acoustic, mea-
sures would have revealed differences, although the partici-
pants indicated no significant effect of either warm-up on
perceived phonatory effort. The authors suggested that warm-
up may induce physiological differences that are not detectable
with current acoustic measures. It is also possible that, for some
people, traditional vocal warm-ups may not be adequate to
bring about the physiological changes associated with more
general physical warm-up for an activity.
Because singing is a highly physical activity, it is reasonable
to turn to exercise physiology literature when considering
warm-up strategies. The most frequently cited effects of a
physical warm-up are increased temperature and blood flow.
The benefits of these two effects are extensive and include
‘‘faster muscle contraction and relaxation, greater economy
of movement because of lowered viscous resistance within
active muscles, improved oxygen delivery and use by muscles,
facilitated nerve transmission and muscle metabolism, and
increased blood flow through active tissues.’’8 Exercise re-
searchers have also considered the various combinations of
warm-up strategies. For example, in a stretching protocol in
preparation for swimming sprints, times only improved when
stretching was combined with a sport-specific warm-up, rather
than with a general aerobic warm-up.9 Also investigating
optimal warm-up strategies for swimming, other researchers
highlighted the importance of individual differences in
designing warm-ups and optimizing performance.10 The most
interesting protocol was explored by Murphy et al,11 who
varied the timing of aerobic activity combined with static
stretching. They found that joint range of motion was opti-
mized when stretching exercises were both preceded and fol-
lowed with 5 minutes of running. Furthermore, they found
that the beneficial effect lasted at least 30 minutes after the
warm-up. They suggested that the second aerobic component
following the static stretching may have maintained the
elevated temperature for a longer period of time than either
running alone, or running only before stretching.
In an initial exploration of the potential impact of exercise on
vocal warm-up, 20 actors performed either vocal warm-up in
isolation, or vocal warm-up preceded by aerobic exercise.12
The 20-minute vocal warm-up consisted of relaxation with
soft, gentle phonation that gradually increased in both pitch
and loudness. In a second condition, the actors performed aer-
obic exercise before the vocal warm-up. They completed exer-
cises such as stepping, marching, jogging, and jumping jacks to
maintain their calculated aerobic target heart rate for 5 minutes.
Results of this study differed by gender. Women demonstrated a
significant reduction in phonatory threshold pressure in the
vocal plus aerobic warm-up condition. Men, on the other
hand, demonstrated improvement in acoustic measures in the
vocal warm-up only condition. The authors suggested two
possible reasons for this finding. First, men and women may
differ in vocal fold composition, particularly regarding hyal-
uronic acid, a water-binding molecule. Second, the finding
may be attributed to a quirk of the sample, in that the men’s re-
sponses to the NASA Physical Activity Questionnaire indicated
they were in better physical condition.
The differential impact cited previously highlights the impor-
tance of tailoring the warm-up to the individual. Variables that
may impact the construction of a warm-up may include a per-
former’s vocal health and general health, as well as voice use
and hydration on the day of performance. Furthermore, the de-
mands and expectations of the performance must also be
considered.4
It is clear that there are many variations on the theme of
warming up to optimize performance. Although some benefit
has been found for traditional vocal warm-up strategies, as
well as semioccluded vocal tract exercises, and vocal exercises
combined with aerobic exercise, warming up exclusively with
an aerobic exercise has not been studied. The present study
was designed to determine if a general, aerobic exercise would
impact voice production in highly trained classical singers. It
was hypothesized that after exercise, singers would increase
SPL, prephonatory inspiration, estimated subglottal pressure,
airflow, and vocal efficiency.
METHODS
The study was approved by the Committee for the Protection of
Human Subjects at the University of Houston. All participants
signed an informed consent before beginning the study.
Participants
Sixteen graduate and six undergraduate students in an academic
vocal performance program were participated. There were 11
sopranos, one mezzo-soprano, five tenors, three baritones,
and two bass/baritones. The participants reported no history
of asthma or other respiratory problems, nor did they indicate
any current respiratory condition such as a cold that might
impact aerobic function. Age ranged from 19–38 years, with
a mean of 24 (standard deviation, 4.4). All participants
completed the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire
Monica McHenry and Joseph Evans Impact of Aerobic Exercise 3

(PAR-Q) and indicated they were safe to exercise. NASA Phys-
ical Activity Ratings were obtained, where 0 indicates an avoid-
ance of walking and exertion, and 10 indicates running over 25
miles/wk, or 12 hours in comparable activity. Participants’ ac-
tivity levels ranged from 2–8, with an average of 6.8, indicating
that the majority were in good physical condition. Each singer’s
aerobic heart range was calculated as 60–80% of their
maximum heart rate (calculated as 220  age).
Aerobic exercise
Singers wore a heart rate monitor while on the treadmill. They
completed a treadmill workout, being monitored to ensure that
30 minutes were in their target aerobic heart range. Treadmill
speed was adjusted as needed to increase or decrease heart
rate. After the workout, the singers rested and drank a half liter
of water until their heart rate returned to its pre-workout level.
Aerodynamic data acquisition
Data during singing were acquired before and after the tread-
mill workout. Data were collected with a Phonatory Aerody-
namic System (PAS, PENTAX Medical, Montvale, New
Jersey, USA), which was calibrated before each data collection
session. Singers wore a face mask attached to a pneumotacho-
graph to capture airflow, with a pressure-sensing tube placed
behind the lips, not touching the tongue or teeth.
In full voice, participants sang the first seven notes of the Star
Spangled Banner on ‘‘pah,’’ repeating the seventh note seven
times, at 1.5 syllables/s after an inhalation. Full voice was
defined as voice production common to the Western operatic
singing style, with a clear, resonating timbre, and full glottal
closure. Singers were instructed to use a self-determined dy-
namic level of mezzo-forte. The key was determined by voice
type, with the target note within the range of passaggio for
men, and in head voice for women. For all 10 sopranos, the
key was E-flat. The two mezzo-sopranos sang in the key of
D. The keys for the tenors were varied, including two in E-
flat, two in D, and one in C. Keys were also varied for the bari-
tones and bass/baritones, with two in B-flat, one in A, and the
remaining baritone in B-flat. Keys were determined by the
second author (J.E.), on the basis of his familiarity with the
students’ voices, and the condition of their voice on the morning
of data collection.
Data analysis
The airflow waveforms were inspected to ensure that no airflow
was present during /p/ closure. The first and last syllables of the
seven-syllable train were eliminated from analysis. In most
cases, automated selection of the pressure peaks and airflow
was performed. Occasionally, vibrato was too great for the auto-
mated system to accept the airflow as steady state. In these
cases, airflow was marked manually. Automated selection
generated values for mean peak pressure, mean airflow during
voicing, and SPL, and calculated values of estimated laryngeal
resistance, acoustic power, and vocal efficiency. To obtain mea-
sures of inspiration preceding the targeted syllable train, inspi-
ration was marked manually.
Reliability
To determine intrajudge reliability, 15% of the sample, predata
and postdata from three participants, was reanalyzed. Average
differences between original and repeated measures for SPL,
estimated subglottal pressure, airflow during voicing, and inspi-
ration, respectively, were 0 dB, 1.7 cm H2O, 5 cc/s, and 25 cc.
RESULTS
Individual data are presented in Tables 1 and 2. In Table 1, it can
be seen that five students produced SPLs more than 1 dB softer
when singing after aerobic exercise. This was considered reflec-
tive of fatigue. The statistical analysis focused on the 17 singers
who maintained or increased SPL after exercise, whose data are
summarized in Table 2.
Paired t tests were performed to assess differences before
and after exercise. Mean SPL increased from 105.1 to 106.2,
significant at P ¼ 0.01 (df ¼ 16; t ¼ 2.44). The SPL increases
ranged from essentially the same to a 7.5-dB increase. As ex-
pected, estimated subglottal pressure also increased, from a
mean of 26.5 to 29.4, an increase that approached significance
(P ¼ 0.06; df ¼ 16; t ¼ 2.01). Mean airflow during voicing

TABLE 1.
Sound Pressure Level (SPL), Estimated Subglottal Pressure (Psg), Airflow During Voicing (Flow), Prephonatory Inspiration
(Insp), Aerodynamic Power (Power), Laryngeal Resistance (Resist), and Vocal Efficiency (Effic) for Participants Who
Demonstrated Fatigue After Exercise
Fatigued Pre-Insp Post Insp
Subject Age Gender SPL Diff. Pre-Psg Post-Psg Pre-Flow Post-Flow Vol Vol Pre-Effic Post-Effic
1 26 M 6.5 33.6 29.3 270.0 230.0 1.3 1.4 4065.0 1433.1
2 19 F 3.8 23.2 23.1 330.0 310.0 0.8 0.6 887.1 447.9
3 18 F 2.7 21.8 20.3 280.0 230.0 0.9 0.9 6064.5 4098.1
4 25 M 1.9 31.6 36.6 560.0 610.0 1.3 1.5 2243.3 1118.9
5 32 M 1.5 15.2 25.0 150.0 160.0 0.3 0.7 7577.0 4573.4
Mean 24 3.3 25.1 26.9 318.0 308.0 0.9 1.02 4167.4 2334.3
Note: These five participants were not included in the statistical analysis because of their decreased SPL after warm-up.
Abbreviations: M, male; F, female.
4 Journal of Voice, Vol. -, No. -, 2015

increased significantly from a mean of 261 cc/s to 302 cc/s
(P ¼ 0.02; df ¼ 16; t ¼ 2.63). Mean airflow was essentially un-
changed in the participants who decreased SPL. Vocal effi-
ciency is based on airflow during voicing, estimated
subglottal pressure, and SPL. There was no significant differ-
ence in vocal efficiency after the aerobic exercise (P ¼ 0.85;
df ¼ 16; t ¼ 0.19), primarily due to large standard deviations
within the pre- and post-exercise conditions. The magnitude of
prephonatory inspiration on average, increased only slightly,
and not significantly after warm-up (P ¼ 3.87, df ¼ 15, with
one singer who did not inhale before syllable train production;
t ¼ 2.13).
Because meaningful results can be overlooked with averaged
data, we would like to highlight the extremes: three individuals
who appeared to fatigue with exercise, and three who appeared
to benefit the most. Table 3 summarizes these participants. For
the individuals who demonstrated fatigue, all aerodynamic
measures were negatively impacted. With an average loss of
about 4 dB, we see a reduction in estimated subglottal pressure
and airflow, with a resultant halving of vocal efficiency. The
decline did not appear to be age or gender dependent; there
were two women and one man, and the age ranged from 18 to
26 years. By contrast, the individuals who markedly improved
with aerobic exercise demonstrated a 6 dB increase. There was
a concomitant increase in estimated subglottal pressure by more
than a third. They averaged over 100 cc/s increase in airflow,
and vocal efficiency doubled for all three. The individuals
who demonstrated most improvement were not the youngest
in the study; their ages were typical of graduate students. The
oldest singer improved, but not to the extent of the three who
benefitted the most. This suggests that singers may benefit
from this warm-up, regardless of age or experience.
DISCUSSION
This study was designed to determine if individuals completing
an aerobic workout would demonstrate changes in various fea-
tures of voice production. It was hypothesized that prephona-
tory inspiration, SPL, estimated subglottal pressure, airflow,
and vocal efficiency would improve. After eliminating five par-
ticipants who appeared to fatigue with exercise, all hypothe-
sized trends were seen, with the exception of prephonatory
inspiration. It is critical to note that these changes were
accomplished without incorporating any vocal warm-up
exercises at all.
Within the general findings, there were individual differences
in the response to the aerobic warm-up. Clearly, if a person is
not in good physical condition, and is fatigued by aerobic exer-
cise, this warm-up is not appropriate; however, given the
apparent benefits, we would encourage singers to become
conditioned enough to incorporate an aerobic warm-up in their
performance preparation. A second consideration is a clear
conception of an aerobic, versus an anaerobic exercise. An aer-
obic training level is functionally defined as ‘‘conversational ex-
ercise.’’8 The inability to converse is caused by lactate
accumulation and shortness of breath, associated with a more
vigorous, and possibly anaerobic workout. Thus, in the absence
of heart rate monitoring to maintain a target rate between 55%

TABLE 2.
Sound Pressure Level (SPL), Estimated Subglottal Pressure (Psg), Airflow During Voicing (Flow), Prephonatory Inspiration
(Insp), Aerodynamic Power (Power), Laryngeal Resistance (Resist), and Vocal Efficiency (Effic) for Participants Who
Demonstrated Improvement After Exercise
Improved Pre-Insp Post-Insp
Subject Age Gender SPL Diff. Pre-Psg Post-Psg Pre-Flow Post-Flow Vol Vol Pre-Effic Post-Effic
1 22 F 0.9 22.7 20.3 160.0 210.0 0.7 0.5 21321.9 23762.2
2 21 M 0.9 29.2 27.3 180.0 170.0 0.9 0.6 19676.3 18137.6
3 22 F 0.8 20.6 24.1 180.0 190.0 1.0 0.8 14695.9 8853.9
4 23 M 0.7 41.5 43.1 130.0 160.0 NA NA 11001.2 7348.2
5 22 F 0.6 27.9 23.9 380.0 410.0 1.1 1.4 5806.3 5907.9
6 24 M 0.4 26.9 18.7 200.0 170.0 0.6 1.1 1406.5 2172.3
7 25 F 0.2 27.1 24.4 400.0 410.0 1.0 1.0 10072.3 11847.4
8 24 F 0.4 27.8 32.7 240.0 300.0 1.0 1.2 18874.4 14917.2
9 22 F 0.9 26.7 18.9 400.0 300.0 1.0 1.0 5017.9 7626.6
10 28 F 1.4 36.7 39.3 320.0 340.0 0.8 0.8 9998.1 12053.5
11 23 M 1.6 15.9 47.87 200.0 220.0 1.0 1.6 13976.9 5168.4
12 29 M 1.7 36.9 38.9 340.0 450.0 1.3 1.1 4466.5 4686.2
13 21 F 2.4 17.9 20.6 370.0 480.0 1.0 1.0 5326.6 6165.8
14 23 M 3.4 32.7 29.6 320.0 370.0 1.4 1.2 4613.7 6638.0
15 23 F 4.9 19.8 24.3 270.0 320.0 0.7 0.8 10328.4 18718.53
16 26 F 6.1 19.3 24.9 220.0 320.0 0.5 0.8 4508.5 7884
17 24 M 7.5 17.8 32.0 130.0 320.0 0.9 1.0 1151.9 2643.0
Mean 1.5 26.3 28.9 261.2 302.4 0.9 1.0 9543.7 9678.3
Abbreviations: F, female; M, male; NA, not applicable.
Monica McHenry and Joseph Evans Impact of Aerobic Exercise 5

TABLE 3.
Extremes of Changes in SPL and Related Aerodynamic Measures
Subject Age Gender Pre-SPL Post-SPL Difference Pre-Psg Post-Psg Pre-Flow Post-Flow Pre-Effic Post-Effic
3 dB or more decrease
1 26 M 103.8 97.3 6.5 33.6 29.3 270.0 230.0 4065.0 1433.1
2 19 F 96.7 92.9 3.8 23.2 23.1 330.0 310.0 887.1 447.9
3 18 F 103.9 101.2 2.7 21.8 20.3 280.0 230.0 6064.5 4098.1
Mean 101.5 97.1 4.3 26.2 24.2 293.3 256.7 3672.2 1993.1
5 dB or more increase
15 23 F 105.2 110.0 4.9 19.8 24.3 270.0 320.0 10328.4 18718.5
16 26 F 100.3 106.4 6.1 19.3 24.9 220.0 320.0 4508.5 7884.0
17 24 M 92.2 99.7 7.5 17.8 32.0 130.0 320.0 1151.9 2643.0
Mean 99.2 105.4 6.2 18.9 27.1 206.7 320.0 5329.6 9748.5
Abbreviations: SPL, sound pressure level in dB; Psg, estimated subglottal pressure; Effic, vocal efficiency; M, male; F, female.

and 70% of maximum, the ability to speak during exercise
would likely keep one in the optimal aerobic range. It should
be noted that this is a cardio workout, as opposed to a weight-
training regimen. We do not advocate weight training as a strat-
egy to warm up the voice. In fact, the laryngeal valving associ-
ated with many weight-training activities could negatively
impact the voice.
Singers experience some situations in which a vocal warm-
up is particularly necessary, and potentially difficult to accom-
plish. These include Sitzprobe, morning rehearsals, Young Ar-
tist Programs, and church jobs. Sitzprobes (literally, ‘‘seat
tests,’’ or a seated rehearsals with the orchestra), particularly
in major opera houses, are routinely conducted around 10 AM
to accommodate the additional professional demands of orches-
tra musicians. Because the purpose of the Sitzprobe is to allow
the conductor to determine orchestral and singer balance, per-
formance level projection is required. Young Artist Programs
in opera companies around the country often require partici-
pants to perform in outreach programs that are frequently
scheduled at 8 AM in elementary, junior high, and high schools.
Although these are typically with piano accompaniment, the
vocal demands of the operatic repertoire, and performance
without amplification, are expected. Finally, many young pro-
fessionals rely on Sunday morning church jobs to supplement
income. Leading a choir section and performing solos can
lead to vocal fatigue, particularly after a Saturday evening vocal
performance.13 These situations, and others encountered by
working singers, highlight the need for adequate vocal prepara-
tion before performing.
Despite the potential promise of aerobic exercise to warm up
the voice, many details remain unanswered. For example, the
optimal timing of an aerobic workout in relation to performance
is unknown. Exercise data suggest that it should be close
enough that the body is still experiencing the increase in tem-
perature, which seems to benefit muscle function. A second
consideration is the willingness of singers to complete an aero-
bic workout before performing. It is possible that in certain sit-
uations, a general aerobic warm-up could set the stage for a
less-demanding vocal-specific warm-up, especially for a high
voice performing early in the morning. Muscle temperature
would increase, circulation would improve, fluid accumulation
in the superficial layer would likely dissipate, and vocal produc-
tion may be easier.
As with all warm-up protocols, customizing the warm-up to
the individual is critical. Each singer will need to determine the
optimal combination of general aerobic warm-up, with vocal-
specific exercises. It is likely that the proportion of each may
change with the upcoming vocal demands and time of day, as
well as the vocal health of the singer.
REFERENCES
1. Barr S. Singing warm-ups: physiology, psychology, or placebo? Logoped
Phoniatr Vocol. 2009;34:142–144.
2. Moorcroft L, Kenny DT. Singer and listener perception of vocal warm-up.
J Voice. 2013;27:258.e1–258.e13.
3. Gish A, Kuncuk M, Sims L, McWhorter AJ. Vocal warm-up practices and
perceptions in vocalists: a pilot survey. J Voice. 2012;26:e1–e10.
4. Amir O, Amir N, Michaeli O. Evaluating the influence of warmup on
singing voice quality using acoustic measures. J Voice. 2005;19:252–260.
5. Sundberg J, La FMB, Gill BP. Automatic Measurements of Formant Fre-
quency and Aperiodicity of Vibrato Vowels. 2015. Presented at the 44th
Annual Symposium: Care of the Professional Voice, Philadelphia, PA.
6. Laukkanen A-M, Horacek J, Havlı́k R. Case-study magnetic resonance
imaging and acoustic investigation of the effects of vocal warm-up on
two voice professionals. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2012;37:75–82.
7. Duke E, Plexico LW, Sandage MJ, Hoch M. The effect of traditional singing
warm-up versus semioccluded vocal tract exercises on the acoustic param-
eters of singing voice. J Voice. 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.
2014.12.009 [Epub ahead of print].
8. McArdle WD, Katch FL, Katch VL. Exercise Physiology. 5th ed. Philadel-
phia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001:575. 479.
9. Samson M, Button DC, Chaouachi A, Behm DG. Effects of dynamic and
static stretching within general and activity specific warm-up protocols.
J Sports Sci Med. 2012;11:279–285.
10. Al-Nawaiseh A, Albiero A, Bishop P. Impact of different warmup proce-
dures on a 50-yard swimming spring. Intl J Acad Res. 2013;5:44–48.
11. Murphy JR, Di Santo MC, Alkanani T, Behm DG. Aerobic activity before
and following short-duration static stretching improves range of motion and
performance vs. a traditional warm-up. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2010;35:
679–690.
12. McHenry M, Johnson J, Foshea B. The effect of specific versus combined
warm-up strategies on the voice. J Voice. 2009;25:572–576.
13. McHenry M, Evans J, Powitzky E. Vocal assessment before, after, and the
day after opera performance. J Voice. 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvoice.2015.02.009 [Epub ahead of print].

View publication stats