MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253809489 · doi:10.1121/1.4793571

Perception of speaker sex in children's voices

2013· article· en· W4253809489 on OpenAlexaff
Peter F. Assmann, Santiago Barreda, Terrance M. Nearey

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of meetings on acoustics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoiceFormantVowelPsychologySentencePerceptionAge groupsAudiologyCorrelationSpeech recognitionMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To study the perception of speaker age in children's voices, adult listeners were presented with vowels in /hVd/ syllables, either in isolation or in a carrier sentence. Listeners used a graphical slider to register their estimate of the speaker's age. The data showed a moderate correlation of perceived age and chronological age. For isolated syllables, age estimation accuracy was fairly constant across age up to about age 11, but there was a systematic tendency for listeners to underestimate the ages of older girls. This error pattern was actually exaggerated when listeners were informed of the speaker's sex. Age estimation accuracy was higher for syllables embedded in a carrier sentence, and knowledge of the speaker's sex had little effect. Linear regression analyses were conducted using acoustic measurements of the stimuli to predict perceived age. These analyses indicated significant contributions of fundamental frequency, duration, vowel category, formant frequencies as well as certain measures related to the voicing source. The persistent underestimation of age for older girls, and the effect knowledge of speaker sex has on this underestimation suggest that acoustic information is combined with expectations regarding speakers of a given sex in arriving at an estimate of speaker age.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of meetings on acousticsSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207