Additionally, we used General Linear Models (GLM) to test for possible effects of sex, age, and country on voice attractiveness ratings. Similarly, to test whether mean F0, range F0, and VTL of speech and singing differ between men and women or between Brazilian and Czech participants, we performed a multivariate GLM with mean F0 and F0 range as dependent variables and sex and country of targets as factors. Due to a limited samples size, we evaluated only simple models. The effect size displayed is a partial Eta-squared (?p 2 ).
We found large effects of targets’ sex on all vocal parameters; mean speech F0 (F = , df = 1, 153, p 2 = 0.878), mean speech F0 range (F = , df = 1, 153, p 2 = 0.086), VTL as measured from speech (F = , df = 1,153, p 2 = 0.934), mean singing F0 (F = , df = 1, 153, p 2 = 0.831), mean singing F0 range (F = 7.00, df = 1, 153, p = 0.009, ?p 2 = 0.045), and VTL as measured from singing (F = , df = 1, 153, p 2 = 0.911). Estimated marginal means revealed that women had a higher F0 and F0 range and shorter VTL than men (for mean values, see Table 1). There was also a significant effect of the target country on speech F0 range (F = 4.31, df = 1, 153, p = 0.040, ?p 2 = 0.028), VTL as measured from speech (F = , df = 1,153, p = 0.001, ?p 2 = 0.065), and VTL as measured from singing (F = 6.59, df = 1, 153, p = 0.011, ?p 2 = 0.042). Estimated marginal means show that Czech participants had a lower speech F0 range and longer VTL than the Brazilian participants (see Table 1 for details).
Desk step one. Suggest fundamental frequency (F0) and also the set of simple volume (F0 range) in the semitones, and you can VTL (when you look at the centimeters) in the men.
It’s worth listing the mediocre VTL methods for men and you will women (Dining table step one) compare to populace-level averages (Pisanski ainsi que al., 2014).
Reviews Between Talking and you can Vocal Voice
F0 mentioned away from speech is actually strongly positively coordinated having F0 counted regarding singing both in males (r = 0.800, N = 73, p dos = , df = 44, p dos = , df = 49, p = 0.26 when you look at the males, ? dos = , df = forty-two, p = 0.05 in women). Email address details are thus reported independently for males and you can people but together to possess Czech and Brazilian users.
Playing with roadway data (discover Second Dining tables S6, S7 to have complete models), i discovered that into the guys, lower-pitched address try ranked much more glamorous (Profile 1). An identical kept of vocal, however, which relationships failed to started to mathematical advantages. In the males, a wide address variety, yet not vocal variety, try rated as more glamorous. Attractive speech is absolutely of the full SOI, however, that it dating don’t manage its stability in the jackknife resampling. The total SOI are yourself connected to less F0 inside message and better F0 during the vocal. Body weight had a powerful and you can confident head impact on imagined address and you will singing elegance. Years had a bad effect on message appeal nevertheless the effect didn’t remain secure below jackknifing (select Second Table S8).
Profile step 1. Road research outcomes for F0. Arrows portray estimated details. Relationship significantly distinct from 0 (expressed by robust permutation produced p thinking) is actually coloured (positive relationships from inside the eco-friendly, negative during the reddish) and you may labeled that have standardized design rates. Dating one to didn’t meet the jackknife relevance stability criteria is represented which have an excellent dashed range. F0 = average basic regularity; WSR = waist-to-neck ratio; and you will WHR = waist-to-cool ratio.