Happy talk: Perceptual and acoustic effects of smiling on speech

Tartter, Vivien C.

doi:10.3758/bf03199901

Cited by 210 publications

(118 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…No correlation was found between clip duration and discrimination accuracy, or number of "No Smile" responses. This is in line with previous findings which have demonstrated that people can hear smiles even from monosyllabic nonsense words (Tartter, 1980;Tartter & Braun, 1994), indicating that smile discrimination is still possible in clips of short duration.…”

Section: Do Differences In Intensity and Clip Duration Aid Discriminasupporting

confidence: 82%

“…The existing findings about the effects of smiles on speech (Aubergé & Cathiard, 2003;Tartter, 1980;Tartter & Braun, 1994) have yet to be explored in conjunction with what we already know about the different social effects of smiles (Ekman & Friesen, 1988;Fridlund, 1991;LaFrance, & Hecht, 1999). Studies on how smiling affects vocalizations have typically focused on the acoustical effects of a mechanical smile gesture (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The vocal communication of different kinds of smile

Drahota

Costall

Reddy

2008

Speech Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Do Differences In Intensity and Clip Duration Aid Discriminasupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The vocal communication of different kinds of smile

Drahota

Costall

Reddy

2008

Speech Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While most regard the smile as exclusively a visual signal, smiling also causes distinctive changes to the voice by reducing the volume of the oral cavity and shortening the effective length of the vocal tract. As a result, vocal formants rise upward in frequency (Tartter, 1980). This is evident in the so-called "smiling voice" which is often apparent when conversing on the telephone.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Facial Expression and Vocal Pitch Height: Evidence of an Intermodal Association

Huron¹,

Dahl²,

Johnson³

2009

Empirical Musicology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forty-four participants were asked to sing moderate, high, and low pitches while their faces were photographed. In a two-alternative forced choice task, independent judges selected the high-pitch faces as more friendly than the low-pitch faces. When photographs were cropped to show only the eye region, judges still rated the high-pitch faces friendlier than the low-pitch faces. These results are consistent with prior research showing that vocal pitch height is used to signal aggression (low pitch) or appeasement (high pitch). An analysis of the facial features shows a strong correlation between eyebrow position and sung pitch-consistent with the role of eyebrows in signaling aggression and appeasement. Overall, the results are consistent with an inter-modal linkage between vocal and facial expressions.

show abstract

“…Over the past century, dozens of formal experiments have confirmed all of the features he described. Sad speech exhibits a quieter dynamic level (Skinner, 1935;Scherer, 1986;Siegman & Boyle, 1993;Banse & Scherer, 1996;Cowie et al, 2001); sad speech is slower in tempo (Siegman & Boyle, 1993;Breitenstein, van Lancker & Daum, 2001); sad speech is lower in pitch (Fairbanks & Pronovost, 1939;Lieberman & Michaels, 1962); sad speech is more monotone (Skinner, 1935;Fairbanks & Pronovost, 1939;Eldred & Price, 1958;Davitz, 1964;Huttar, 1968;Williams & Stevens, 1972;Bergmann, Goldbeck & Scherer, 1988;Banse & Scherer, 1996;Sobin & Alpert, 1999;Breitenstein, van Lancker & Daum, 2001;); sad speech exhibits more mumbled articulation (Dalla Bella, Peretz, Rousseau, & Gosselin, 2001); and sad speech displays a darker timbre (Ohala, 1980(Ohala, , 1994Tartter, 1980;Scherer, Johnstone, & Klasmeyer, 2003, Table 23.2; Schwartz, Howe, & Purves, 2003;Ross, Choi, & Purves, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“You Can’t Play a Sad Song on the Banjo:” Acoustic Factors in the Judgment of Instrument Capacity to Convey Sadness

Huron

Anderson

Shanahan

2014

EMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forty-four Western-enculturated musicians completed two studies. The first group was asked to judge the relative sadness of forty-four familiar Western instruments. An independent group was asked to assess a number of acoustical properties for those same instruments. Using the estimated acoustical properties as predictor variables in a multiple regression analysis, a significant correlation was found between those properties known to contribute to sad prosody in speech and the judged sadness of the instruments. The best predictor variable was the ability of the instrument to make small pitch movements. Other variables investigated included the darkness of the timbre, the ability to play low pitches, the ability to play quietly, and the capacity of the instrument to "mumble." Four of the acoustical factors were found to exhibit a considerable amount of shared variance, suggesting that they may originate in a common underlying factor. It is suggested that the shared proximal cause of these acoustical features may be low physical energy.

show abstract

Happy talk: Perceptual and acoustic effects of smiling on speech

Cited by 210 publications

References 14 publications

The vocal communication of different kinds of smile

The vocal communication of different kinds of smile

Facial Expression and Vocal Pitch Height: Evidence of an Intermodal Association

“You Can’t Play a Sad Song on the Banjo:” Acoustic Factors in the Judgment of Instrument Capacity to Convey Sadness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About