RESUMO Objetivo Identificar os termos referidos pela população em geral para a qualidade vocal saudável, rugosa e soprosa. Métodos foi realizado um teste, de modo presencial, com 50 participantes sem vínculos acadêmicos ou profissionais com a Fonoaudiologia. A tarefa consistia em ouvir três vozes e defini-las livremente. A primeira voz apresentada era predominantemente soprosa; a segunda, predominantemente rugosa e a terceira, vocalmente saudável. Apresentou-se a emissão sustentada da vogal /Ɛ/ e a contagem de 1 a 10. Cada participante deveria responder ao comando: “Ouça essa voz. Com qual termo você a nomearia?”, digitando a resposta em uma linha disposta na tela do PowerPoint. Resultados para a voz saudável, o termo que mais se repetiu foi “normal” (36%); outros termos foram: “limpa”, “comum”, “padrão”, “clara”, “límpida”, “firme”, “boa”, “som aberto”, “definida”. Para a voz rugosa, 25 participantes (50%) responderam com o termo “rouca” e os demais se dividiram em termos como “ruidosa”, “chiada”, “voz de fumante”, “grave”, “idosa”, “cavernosa”, “anormal”, entre outros termos similares. Para a voz soprosa, 24 participantes (48%) usaram o termo “cansada”; cinco atribuíram o adjetivo “fraca”; três responderam com o termo “sem fôlego”; houve duas correspondências aos termos “arrastada” e “doente” e os demais participantes responderam com termos semelhantes: “exausta”, “preguiçosa”, “sonolenta”, “fatigada” e afins. Conclusão os termos “normal” para voz saudável, “rouca” para voz rugosa e “cansada” para voz soprosa possibilitam a percepção mais usual desses parâmetros clínicos de qualidade vocal, para indivíduos alheios à linguagem técnico-científica da Fonoaudiologia
ABSTRACT Purpose Identify the terms mentioned by the general population for healthy, rough and breathy vocal quality. Methods A test was carried out with 50 participants, in person, without academic or professional ties with Speech Therapy. The task was to hear three voices and define them freely. The first voice presented was predominantly breathy; the second, predominantly rough and the third, vocally healthy. The sustained emission of the vowel / Ɛ / and the count from one to ten were presented. Each participant should respond to the command: “Listen to that voice. Which term would you name it?”, Typing the answer on a line displayed on the PowerPoint screen. Results For the healthy voice, the term that was repeated the most was “normal” (36%), other terms were: “clean”, “common”, “standard”, “clear”, “clear”, “firm”, “good”, “open sound”, “defined”. For the rough voice, twenty-five participants (50%) responded with the term “hoarse” and the others were divided into terms such as “noisy”, “smoker's voice”, “deep”, “elderly”, “cavernous”, “abnormal”, among other similar terms. For the breathy voice, twenty-four participants (48%) used the term “tired”; five participants assigned the adjective “weak”; three responded with the term “out of breath”; there were two correspondences to the terms “dragged” and “sick”; and the other participants responded with terms similar: “exhausted”, “lazy”, “sleepy”, “fatigued” and the like. Conclusion The terms “normal” for a healthy voice, “hoarse” for a rough voice and “tired” for a breathy voice, allow a more usual perception of these clinical parameters of vocal quality, for individuals outside the technical-scientific language of Speech Therapy.
