ArticlePloS one2024
Can acoustic measurements predict gender perception in the voice?
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Influencing Auditory Perception of Masculinity and Naturalness in Transmasculine Voices.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Decoding Gender in Cough Sounds: A Transformer-Based Analysis.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Voice gender diversity: expression, perception and acoustics.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- An acoustic model of speech dysprosody in patients with Parkinson's disease.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine if there is an association between vocal gender presentation and the gender and context of the listener.
methodQuantitative and transversal study. 47 speakers of Brazilian Portuguese of different genders were recorded. Recordings included sustained vowel emission, connected speech, and the expressive recital of a poem. Subsequently, four scripts were used in Praat to extract 16 acoustic measurements related to prosody. Voices underwent Auditory-Perceptual Assessment (APA) of the gender presentation by 236 people [65 speech and language pathologist (SLP) with experience in the area of the voice (SLP), 101 cisgender people (CG), and 70 transgender and non-binary people (TNB)]. Gender presentation was evaluated by visual analogue scale. Agreement analyses were executed among quantitative variables and multiple linear regression models were generated to predict APA, taking the judge context/gender and speaker gender into consideration.
resultsAcoustic analysis revealed that cis and transgender women had higher median fundamental frequency (fo) values than other genders. Cisgender women exhibited greater breathiness, while cisgender men showed more vocal quality deviations. In terms of APA, significant differences were observed among judge groups: SLP judged vowel samples differently from other groups, and TNB judged speech samples differently (both p<0.001). The predictive measures for the APA varied based on the sample type, speaker gender, and judge group. For vowel samples, only SLP judges had predictive measures (fo and ABI Jitter) for cisgender speakers. In number counting samples, predictive measures for cisgender speakers included fomed and HNR for CG judges, and fomed for both SLP and TNB judges. For transgender and non-binary speakers, predictive measures were fomed for CG and SLP judges, and fomed, CPPs, and ABI for TNB judges. In the poem recital task, predictive measures for cisgender speakers were fomed and HNR for both SLP and CG judges, with additional measures of cvint and sr for CG judges, and fomed, HNR, cvint, and fopeakwidth for TNB judges. For transgender and non-binary speakers, the predictive measures included a wider range of acoustic features such as fomed, fosd, sr, fomin, emph, HNR, Shimmer, and fo peakwidth for SLP judges, and fomed, fosd, sr, fomax, emph, HNR, and Shimmer for CG judges, while TNB judges considered fomed, sr, emph, fosd, Shimmer, HNR, Jitter, and fomax.
conclusionsThere is an association between the perception of gender presentation in the voice and the gender or context of the listener and the speaker. Transgender and non-binary judges diverged to a higher degree from cisgender and SLP judges. Compared to the evaluation of cisgender speakers, all judge groups used a greater number of acoustic measurements when analyzing the speech of transgender and non-binary individuals in the poem recital samples.
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.