MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367853232 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1046672

Visual biases in evaluation of speakers’ and singers’ voice type by cis and trans listeners

2023· article· en· W4367853232 on OpenAlexafffund
Jay Marchand Knight, Anastasia G. Sares, Mickael L. D. Deroche

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsPsychologyLinguisticsCognitive psychologyAudiologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: (voice type) should be appraised based on acoustic cues characterizing their voice. Instead, in practice, it is often influenced by the individual's physical appearance. This is especially distressful for transgender people who may be excluded from formal singing because of perceived mismatch between their voice and appearance. To eventually break down these visual biases, we need a better understanding of the conditions under which they occur. Specifically, we hypothesized that trans listeners (not actors) would be better able to resist such biases, relative to cis listeners, precisely because they would be more aware of appearance-voice dissociations. Methods: In an online study, 85 cisgender and 81 transgender participants were presented with 18 different actors singing or speaking short sentences. These actors covered six voice categories from high/bright (traditionally feminine) to low/dark (traditionally masculine) voices: namely soprano, mezzo-soprano (referred to henceforth as mezzo), contralto (referred to henceforth as alto), tenor, baritone, and bass. Every participant provided voice type ratings for (1) Audio-only (A) stimuli to get an unbiased estimate of a given actor's voice type, (2) Video-only (V) stimuli to get an estimate of the strength of the bias itself, and (3) combined Audio-Visual (AV) stimuli to see how much visual cues would affect the evaluation of the audio. Results: Results demonstrated that visual biases are not subtle and hold across the entire scale, shifting voice appraisal by about a third of the distance between adjacent voice types (for example, a third of the bass-to-baritone distance). This shift was 30% smaller for trans than for cis listeners, confirming our main hypothesis. This pattern was largely similar whether actors sung or spoke, though singing overall led to more feminine/high/bright ratings. Conclusion: This study is one of the first demonstrations that transgender listeners are in fact better judges of a singer's or speaker's voice type because they are better able to separate the actors' voice from their appearance, a finding that opens exciting avenues to fight more generally against implicit (or sometimes explicit) biases in voice appraisal.

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)0.001
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 score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207