ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2019
Acoustic and linguistic factors affecting perceptual dissimilarity judgments of voices.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges in Accommodating Talker Variability in Lexical Tone Perception Among Autistic Adults: Implications for Talker Adaptation.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Listeners do not tune in to more rewarding voices.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Reverse Hierarchical Processing of Speech in Talker Identification.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Implicit voice learning through discrimination outperforms explicit listen-and-memorize tasks.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- As group size increases, individuals modify their vocal features to signal cooperation while remaining recognizable.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Talker identification under adverse auditory conditions-The impacts of noise, channel, language, and familiarity.PloS one · 2026Article
- Dual learning systems in talker identification: the effects of language, accent, and feedback.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Foreign language talker identification does not generalize to new talkers.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Article
- Do 'leaders' in change sound different from 'laggers'? The perceptual similarity of New Zealand English voices.PloS one · 2025Article
- Cortical-striatal brain network distinguishes deepfake from real speaker identity.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Talker change detection by listeners varying in age and hearing loss.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- Lexical effects on talker discrimination in adult cochlear implant usersa).The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- The mechanism of phonetic information in voice identity discrimination: a comparative study based on sighted and blind people.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Pop Music Singing in Education with Modern Innovative Technologies: How the Chinese Language Shapes the Creation of Popular Singing.Journal of psycholinguistic research · 2023Article
- Multiple sources of acoustic variation affect speech processing efficiency.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
- Algorithmic voice transformations reveal the phonological basis of language-familiarity effects in cross-cultural emotion judgments.PloS one · 2023Article
- Implicit and explicit learning in talker identification.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022Article
- Exploring racial and gender disparities in voice biometrics.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The human voice is a complex acoustic signal that conveys talker identity via individual differences in numerous features, including vocal source acoustics, vocal tract resonances, and dynamic articulations during speech. It remains poorly understood how differences in these features contribute to perceptual dissimilarity of voices and, moreover, whether linguistic differences between listeners and talkers interact during perceptual judgments of voices. Here, native English- and Mandarin-speaking listeners rated the perceptual dissimilarity of voices speaking English or Mandarin from either forward or time-reversed speech. The language spoken by talkers, but not listeners, principally influenced perceptual judgments of voices. Perceptual dissimilarity judgments of voices were always highly correlated between listener groups and forward/time-reversed speech. Representational similarity analyses that explored how acoustic features (fundamental frequency mean and variation, jitter, harmonics-to-noise ratio, speech rate, and formant dispersion) contributed to listeners' perceptual dissimilarity judgments, including how talker- and listener-language affected these relationships, found the largest effects relating to voice pitch. Overall, these data suggest that, while linguistic factors may influence perceptual judgments of voices, the magnitude of such effects tends to be very small. Perceptual judgments of voices by listeners of different native language backgrounds tend to be more alike than different.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.