Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42470470›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Perceptual Adaptation to Noise-Vocoded Voice Clones.

Han Wang, Carolyn McGettigan, Patti Adank

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Han WangSchool of Psychology, University of Roehampton, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2479-4728
Carolyn McGettiganDepartment of Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Patti AdankDepartment of Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9525-8551

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Voice cloning technology has developed rapidly, and current synthesis techniques can produce humanlike voices. Recent research has shown that cloned voices can now be more intelligible than their human originals in background noise, a signal-extrinsic degradation. Here, we aimed to establish whether this intelligibility benefit for voice clones degraded using noise-vocoding, a signal-intrinsic manipulation that severely degrades fine-grained spectrotemporal and harmonic information in the speech signal. We also investigated whether listeners can perceptually adapt to noise-vocoded voice clones. We compared the intelligibility of ten six-band noise-vocoded voice clones with their human originals. Listeners heard 80 sentences, in two counterbalanced blocks: a block of 40 sentences by voice clones and a block of 40 sentences by human, to compare perceptual adaptation to both speech types. Listeners showed 13.2% higher accuracy for voice clones. Overall, listeners adapted to the noise-vocoded speech and improved by around 16% over the course of 40 sentences in the first block only, regardless of whether voices were human or cloned. The intelligibility benefit for cloned voices thus persisted for noise-vocoded speech, and listeners adapted to noise-vocoded cloned voices as much as for noise-vocoded human voices. Our results have implications for applications of voice clones, in particular in future development of assistive listening technologies.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalNoisePerceptual MaskingSpeech AcousticsSpeech IntelligibilitySpeech PerceptionVoice QualityVoice RecognitionAcoustic StimulationAdultFemaleHumansMaleSound SpectrographyYoung Adultintelligibilitynoise-vocodingperceptual adaptationspeech perceptionvoice clones

Identifiers

PMID42470470
PMCPMC13380695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.