ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2025
Acoustic estimation of voice roughness.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Roughness is a perceptual characteristic of sound that was first applied to musical consonance and dissonance, but it is increasingly recognized as a central aspect of voice quality in human and animal communication. It may be particularly important for asserting social dominance or attracting attention in urgent signals such as screams. To ensure that the results of roughness research are valid and consistent across studies, we need standard methodology for measuring it. I review the literature on roughness estimation, from classic psychoacoustics to more recent approaches, and present two collections of 602 human vocal samples whose roughness was rated by 162 listeners in perceptual experiments. Two algorithms for estimating roughness acoustically from modulation spectra are then presented and optimized to match the human ratings. One uses a bank of gammatone or Butterworth filters to obtain an auditory spectrogram, and a faster algorithm begins with a conventional spectrogram obtained with Short-Time Fourier transform; both explain ~ 50% of variance in average human ratings per stimulus. The range of modulation frequencies most relevant to roughness perception is [50, 200] Hz; this range can be selected with simple cutoff points or with a lognormal weighting function. Modulation and roughness spectrograms are proposed as visual aids for studying the dynamics of roughness in longer recordings. The described algorithms are implemented in the function modulationSpectrum() from the open-source R library soundgen. The audio recordings and their ratings are freely available from https://osf.io/gvcpx/ and can be used for benchmarking other algorithms.
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.