ArticleTrends in hearing
Perceptual Adaptation to Noise-Vocoded Voice Clones.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.