Links between the perception of speaker age and sex in children's voices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At a recent meeting [Assmann et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 135, 2424 (2014)] we reported two experiments on the perception of speaker age and sex in children's voices, along with two models to predict listeners’ judgments. The stimuli were vocoded /hVd/ syllables produced by 140 speakers, ages 5 through 18, processed to simulate a change in the sex of the speaker. Experimental conditions involved swapping the fundamental frequency (F0) contour and/or the formant frequencies (FF) to the opposite-sex average within each age group. The present study extended the original experiments by requiring each listener to judge both age and sex on each trial to investigate the relationship between the two perceptual responses. Results revealed that age estimation error is systematically linked to sex misclassification, particularly in older children. In the unswapped condition, age estimates tended to be lower if the voice was identified as male, relative to the same voice heard as female. The condition with both F0 and FF swapped approached the opposite pattern of results; however, the remaining discrepancy indicates these are not the only cues for the perception of age and sex in children’s voices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".