ArticleScientific reports2023
Comparing accuracy in voice-based assessments of biological speaker traits across speech types.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of machine learning and voice for multiclass classification of Parkinson's disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and healthy controls.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Can conceptual beliefs shape impressions from voices?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Love Is Not Blind: It May Be Indifferent to Partners' Flaws, Unless It Involves Cheating or Aggression.Archives of sexual behavior · 2026Article
- Time after time: Voice perception from first impressions to identity recognition.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2025Review
- Autistic adults form first impressions from voices in similar ways to non-autistic adults.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nonverbal acoustic parameters of the human voice provide cues to a vocaliser's sex, age, and body size that are relevant in human social and sexual communication, and also increasingly so for computer-based voice recognition and synthesis technologies. While studies have shown some capacity in human listeners to gauge these biological traits from unseen speakers, it remains unknown whether speech complexity improves accuracy. Here, in over 200 vocalisers and 1500 listeners of both sexes, we test whether voice-based assessments of sex, age, height and weight vary from isolated vowels and words, to sequences of vowels and words, to full sentences or paragraphs. We show that while listeners judge sex and especially age more accurately as speech complexity increases, accuracy remains high across speech types, even for a single vowel sound. In contrast, the actual heights and weights of vocalisers explain comparatively less variance in listener's assessments of body size, which do not vary systematically by speech type. Our results thus show that while more complex speech can improve listeners' biological assessments, the gain is ecologically small, as listeners already show an impressive capacity to gauge speaker traits from extremely short bouts of standardised speech, likely owing to within-speaker stability in underlying nonverbal vocal parameters such as voice pitch. We discuss the methodological, technological, and social implications of these results.
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.