ArticleCognitive processing2024
'Should we laugh?' Acoustic features of (in)voluntary laughters in spontaneous conversations.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Laughter in the making: social bonding and coordination in dance practices.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Laughter is one of the most common non-verbal features; however, contrary to the previous assumptions, it may also act as signals of bonding, affection, emotional regulation agreement or empathy (Scott et al. Trends Cogn Sci 18:618-620, 2014). Although previous research agrees that laughter does not form a uniform group in many respects, different types of laughter have been defined differently by individual research. Due to the various definitions of laughter, as well as their different methodologies, the results of the previous examinations were often contradictory. The analysed laughs were often recorded in controlled, artificial situations; however, less is known about laughs from social conversations. Thus, the aim of the present study is to examine the acoustic realisation, as well as the automatic classification of laughter that appear in human interactions according to whether listeners consider them to be voluntary or involuntary. The study consists of three parts using a multi-method approach. Firstly, in the perception task, participants had to decide whether the given laughter seemed to be rather involuntary or voluntary. In the second part of the experiment, those sound samples of laughter were analysed that were considered to be voluntary or involuntary by at least 66.6% of listeners. In the third part, all the sound samples were grouped into the two categories by an automatic classifier. The results showed that listeners were able to distinguish laughter extracted from spontaneous conversation into two different types, as well as the distinction was possible on the basis of the automatic classification. In addition, there were significant differences in acoustic parameters between the two groups of laughter. The results of the research showed that, although the distinction between voluntary and involuntary laughter categories appears based on the analysis of everyday, spontaneous conversations in terms of the perception and acoustic features, there is often an overlap in the acoustic features of voluntary and involuntary laughter. The results will enrich our previous knowledge of laughter and help to describe and explore the diversity of non-verbal vocalisations.
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.