ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Validation of scrambling methods for vocal affect bursts.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies on perception and cognition require sound methods allowing us to disentangle the basic sensory processing of physical stimulus properties from the cognitive processing of stimulus meaning. Similar to the scrambling of images, the scrambling of auditory signals is aimed at creating stimulus instances that are unrecognizable but have comparable low-level features. In the present study, we generated scrambled stimuli of short vocalizations taken from the Montreal Affective Voices database (Belin et al., Behav Res Methods, 40(2):531-539, 2008) by applying four different scrambling methods (frequency-, phase-, and two time-scrambling transformations). The original stimuli and their scrambled versions were judged by 60 participants for the apparency of a human voice, gender, and valence of the expressions, or, if no human voice was detected, for the valence of the subjective response to the stimulus. The human-likeness ratings were reduced for all scrambled versions relative to the original stimuli, albeit to a lesser extent for phase-scrambled versions of neutral bursts. For phase-scrambled neutral bursts, valence ratings were equivalent to those of the original neutral burst. All other scrambled versions were rated as slightly unpleasant, indicating that they should be used with caution due to their potential aversiveness.
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.