Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38637516›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Perceptual (but not acoustic) features predict singing voice preferences.

Camila Bruder, David Poeppel, Pauline Larrouy-Maestri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Camila BruderMax Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. camila.bruder@ae.mpg.de.ORCID 0000-0001-7956-2679
David PoeppelNew York University, New York, NY, USA.
Pauline Larrouy-MaestriMax Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Why do we prefer some singers to others? We investigated how much singing voice preferences can be traced back to objective features of the stimuli. To do so, we asked participants to rate short excerpts of singing performances in terms of how much they liked them as well as in terms of 10 perceptual attributes (e.g.: pitch accuracy, tempo, breathiness). We modeled liking ratings based on these perceptual ratings, as well as based on acoustic features and low-level features derived from Music Information Retrieval (MIR). Mean liking ratings for each stimulus were highly correlated between Experiments 1 (online, US-based participants) and 2 (in the lab, German participants), suggesting a role for attributes of the stimuli in grounding average preferences. We show that acoustic and MIR features barely explain any variance in liking ratings; in contrast, perceptual features of the voices achieved around 43% of prediction. Inter-rater agreement in liking and perceptual ratings was low, indicating substantial (and unsurprising) individual differences in participants' preferences and perception of the stimuli. Our results indicate that singing voice preferences are not grounded in acoustic attributes of the voices per se, but in how these features are perceptually interpreted by listeners.

Indexed as

MusicSingingVoiceAcousticsHumansVoice Quality

Identifiers

PMID38637516
PMCPMC11026466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.