• Filipa M B Lã, Greta Wistbacka, Pedro Amarante Andrade, and Svante Granqvist.
• Center for Social Sciences, University of Coimbra, Portugal; Institute of Interdisciplinary Research, University of Coimbra, Portugal. Electronic address: filipala@ces.uc.pt.
• J Voice. 2017 May 1; 31 (3): 390.e1-390.e8.

ObjectivesFlow ball devices have been used as teaching tools to provide visual real-time feedback of airflow during singing. This study aims at exploring static back pressure and ball height as function of flow for two devices, marketed as flow ball and floating ball game.Study DesignThis is a comparative descriptive study.MethodsA flow-driven vocal tract simulator was used to investigate the aerodynamic properties of these two devices, testing them for four different ball sizes. The flow range investigated was between 0 and 0.5 L/s. Audio, flow, pressure, and ball height were recorded.ResultsThe flow pressure profiles for both tested devices were similar to those observed in previous studies on narrow tubes. For lifting the ball, both devices had a flow and a pressure threshold. The tested floating ball game required considerably higher back pressure for a given flow as compared with the flow ball.ConclusionsBoth tested devices have similar effects on back pressure as straws of 3.7 and 3.0 mm in diameter for the flow ball and the floating ball game, respectively. One might argue that both devices could be used as tools for practicing semi-occluded vocal tract exercises, with the additional benefit of providing real-time visual feedback of airflow during phonation. The flow threshold, combined with the flow feedback, would increase awareness of flow, rather than of pressure, during exercises using a flow ball device.Published by Elsevier Inc.

14 keywords...

hide…