2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2018.09.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sensory Exploitation, Sexual Dimorphism, and Human Voice Pitch

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It may also be relevant that while roars might be primarily interpreted as intentions (e.g., as affective state of anger), utterances might be interpreted primarily as characteristic of the individual (e.g., as a level of dominance). Alternatively, the association between some acoustic parameters and perceived formidability might be the result of sensory exploitation and have only limited predictive value for actual formidability (Feinberg et al, 2018). We also found that the main acoustic predictors of formidability in roars are intensity, HNR, duration, and to some extent also fundamental frequency.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It may also be relevant that while roars might be primarily interpreted as intentions (e.g., as affective state of anger), utterances might be interpreted primarily as characteristic of the individual (e.g., as a level of dominance). Alternatively, the association between some acoustic parameters and perceived formidability might be the result of sensory exploitation and have only limited predictive value for actual formidability (Feinberg et al, 2018). We also found that the main acoustic predictors of formidability in roars are intensity, HNR, duration, and to some extent also fundamental frequency.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Phylogenetic reconstruction suggests that relatively male f o evolved in the common ancestor of the catarrhine primates after their divergence from platyrrhines approximately 43.5mya 5 . Given the weak correspondence between f o and body size, some have argued that f o is purely deceptive and is not an honest indicator of physical dominance 27,28,131 . Others have suggested that f o may reliably correlate with other salient speaker characteristics such as status, threat, and dominance, and that these dimensions may overlap with, and hence intrude onto impressions of, size 46 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, in information-rich contexts, fo only explains around 3-4% of the variance in perceived dominance (cf. meta-analysis in Aung & Puts, 2020), and pitch is a poor indicator of physical dominance (Armstrong et al, 2019;Feinberg et al, 2018Feinberg et al, , 2019. Meta-analyses indicate that pitch explains less than 2% of the variance in men's body size, whereas formant frequencies explain up to 10% of the variance in men's body size (Pisanski et al, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%