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 1. Indicate standard volume (F0) as well as the directory of fundamental regularity (F0 diversity) into the semitones, and you may VTL (in centimeters) in the anyone.
It is value detailing that mediocre VTL tips for men and you may females (Desk 1) compare with populace-peak averages (Pisanski mais aussi al., 2014).
Evaluations Anywhere between Talking and you will Vocal Sound
F0 mentioned of address was firmly seriously synchronised having F0 mentioned of vocal in men (r = 0.800, Letter = 73, p 2 = , df = 49, p dos = , df = forty two, p = 0.twenty six during the males, ? 2 = , df = forty-two, p = 0.05 in females). Email address details are ergo reported alone for males and ladies but together having Czech and you may Brazilian users.
Using highway analysis (look for Second Tables S6, S7 to have complete activities), i unearthed that when you look at the guys, lower-pitched message are rated as more attractive (Figure step one). A comparable kept off vocal, but it relationship failed to visited statistical significance. Into the boys, a wider address range, yet not vocal assortment, was ranked as more attractive. Attractive speech was certainly of the total SOI, but it dating didn’t maintain its balance inside jackknife resampling. The full SOI try individually associated with a lower F0 during the message and better F0 when you look at the vocal. Weight had a powerful and you can self-confident direct influence on understood message and you will singing attractiveness. Years got a bad effect on address elegance nevertheless feeling failed to will still be steady lower than jackknifing (pick Secondary Table S8).
Profile 1. Path investigation results for F0. Arrows depict estimated details. Relationships significantly unlike 0 (indicated from the strong permutation yielded p values) was colored (confident relationships into the green, negative when you look at the red) and labeled which have standardized design prices. Relationships one don’t meet up with the jackknife advantages stability criteria is actually portrayed that have an effective dashed line. F0 = mediocre simple regularity; WSR = waist-to-shoulder proportion; and you can WHR = waist-to-stylish proportion.