# Electroglottographic Analysis of the Voice in Young Male Role of Kunqu Opera
## 3 Results
### Clustering Analysis  
To determine the vibration modes of the vocal folds, all three EGG parameters needed to be taken into consideration. Table 1 illustrates the cluster centroids of EGG parameters and the percentage of data around the centroid of the two YM singers. A combination of the singer, the condition (S stood for singing, SS stood for stage speech), w and the number of the clustering centroid, such as \"YM1\(S\)1\" (the first clustering centroid of YM1's singing parameters), was used to refer to each clustering centroid. As shown in Table 1, there were eight effective clustering centroids for each singer in each condition. Up to 84% of the clustering centroids was distributed below the maximum  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Singer**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Singing**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Stage Speech**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & **No. ** & \(f_{\omega}\)**/Semi** & **CQ/\%** & **SQ/\%** & **P/\%** & **PT** & **No. ** & \(f_{\omega}\)**/Semi** & **CQ/\%** & **SQ/\%** & **P/\%** & **PT** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{YM1} & 1 & 25 & 43 & 318 & 10 & m & 1 & 22 & 57 & 414 & 7 & M \\  & 2 & 26 & 33 & 216 & 15 & B & 2 & 23 & 2  
pitch of the YM roles' passaggio. On the other hand, in the high pitch range (above B4), the vocal cords vibrated stably since there was only one clustering centroid. The vibration mode of the vocal fold did not show a one-to-one correspondence with pitch. The \(f_{o}\) of YMI_S_4 and 5, YM2\(S\)1 and 2, and YM2\(S\)6 and 7 were same. However, the CQ and SQ of them showed great diversity. On the adjacent pitches, the CQ or SQ was also different. The proportions of the clustering centroids varied a lot. The smallest was 3% and the largest was 22%. In most cases, if the \(f_{o}\) of two clustering centroids was close, the proportions of them displayed a relatively large difference. Between singers, the clustering centroids appeared on different pitches in both singing and stage speech. Some clustering centroids presented the same or similar parameter characteristics, such as YM1\(S\)5 and YM2\(S\)3, and YM1\(S\)8 and YM2\(S\)8. The other centroids showed more obvious differences, such as YM1_SS_4 and YM2_SS_5, and YM1\(S\)6 and YM2\(S\)5. For both singers, multi differences were observed between conditions. The clustering centroids were located in different pitch ranges, especially for YM2. There were five clustering centroids in the pitch range of 29-34 in [PERSON]'s singing, while there was none for his stage speech. Even if the clustering centroids showed the same \(f_{o}\), the CQ and SQ of some clustering centers were different, such as YM1\(S\)5 and YM1_SS_5. Eight clustering centroids did not equal eight phonation types. Regarding the influence of the \(f_{o}\) on the clustering result, if two clustering centroids showed a similar CQ and SQ but a different \(f_{o}\), they may be or may not be the same phonation type, which depended on the similarity degree between their EGG waveforms. Thus, combining the analysis for Figure 5, the phonation type of each clustering centroid can be determined; see the last column of each part in Table 1. For YM1 and YM2's singing, the proportion of phonation type, from high to low, was untrained falsetto, breathy voice, modal voice, high adduction falsetto, and high adduction modal voice. The phonation types used were slightly different between singers in stage speech. YM1 used a higher percentage of high adduction modal voice, modal voice, and high adduction falsetto and less breathy voice and untrained falsetto than in singing. For YM2, compared with singing, a higher percentage of breathy voice, high adduction modal voice, modal voice, high adduction falsetto, and less untrained falsetto were employed in stage speech. A higher degree of posterior glottal adduction made the voice have stronger energy in stage speech than in singing, which was verified by previous research [26].