Search

When seeing a face or hearing a voice, perceivers readily form first impressions of a person's characteristics--are they trustworthy, do they seem aggressive? One of the key claims about trait impressions from faces and voices alike is that these impressions are formed rapidly. For faces, studies have systematically mapped this rapid time course of trait impressions, finding that they are well formed and stable after approximately 100 ms of exposure. For voices, however, no systematic investigation of the time course of trait perception exists. In the current study, listeners provided trait judgments (attractiveness, dominance, trustworthiness) based on recordings of 100 voices that lasted either 50, 100, 200, 400, or 800 ms. Based on measures of intra- and interrater agreement as well as correlations of mean ratings for different exposure conditions, we find that trait perception from voices is indeed rapid. Unlike faces, however, trait impressions from voices require longer exposure to develop and stabilize although they are still formed by 400 ms. Furthermore, differences in the time course of trait perception from voices emerge across traits and voice gender: The formation of impressions of attractiveness and dominance required less exposure when based on male voices, whereas impressions of trustworthiness evolved over a more gradual time course for male and female voices alike. These findings not only provide the first estimate of the time course of the formation of voice trait impressions, but they also have implications for voice perception models where voices are regarded as "auditory faces.". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research suggests that familiarity with a voice can afford benefits for voice and speech perception. However, even familiar voice perception has been reported to be error-prone, especially in the face of challenges such as reduced verbal cues and acoustic distortions. It has been hypothesized that such findings may arise due to listeners not being "familiar enough" with the voices used in laboratory studies, and thus being inexperienced with their full vocal repertoire. Extending this idea, voice perception based on highly familiar voices-acquired via substantial, naturalistic experience-should therefore be more robust than voice perception from less familiar voices. We investigated this proposal by contrasting voice perception of personally familiar voices (participants' romantic partners) versus lab-trained voices in challenging experimental tasks. Specifically, we tested how differences in familiarity may affect voice-identity perception from nonverbal vocalizations and acoustically modulated speech. Large benefits for the personally familiar voice over a less familiar, lab-trained voice were found for identity recognition, with listeners displaying both highly accurate yet more conservative recognition of personally familiar voices. However, no familiar-voice benefits were found for speech perception in background noise. Our findings suggest that listeners have fine-tuned representations of highly familiar voices that result in more robust and accurate voice recognition despite challenging listening contexts, yet these advantages may not always extend to speech perception. We conclude that familiarity with voices is indeed on a continuum, with identity perception for personally familiar voices being highly accurate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human faces and voices are rich sources of information that can vary in many different ways. Most of the literature on face/voice perception has focused on understanding how people look and sound different to each other (between-person variability). However, recent studies highlight the ways in which the same person can look and sound different on different occasions (within-person variability). Across three experiments, we examined how within- and between-person variability relate to one another for social trait impressions by collecting trait ratings attributed to multiple face images and voice recordings of the same people. We find that within-person variability in social trait evaluations is at least as great as between-person variability. Using different stimulus sets across experiments, trait impressions of voices are consistently more variable within people than between people--a pattern that is only evident occasionally when judging faces. Our findings highlight the importance of understanding within-person variability, showing how judgments of the same person can vary widely on different encounters and quantify how this pattern differs for voice and face perception. The work consequently has implications for theoretical models proposing that voices can be considered "auditory faces" and imposes limitations to the "kernel of truth" hypothesis of trait evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2 behavioral experiments, we explored how the extraction of identity-related information from familiar and unfamiliar voices is affected by naturally occurring vocal flexibility and variability, introduced by different types of vocalizations and levels of volitional control during production. In a first experiment, participants performed a speaker discrimination task on vowels, volitional (acted) laughter, and spontaneous (authentic) laughter from 5 unfamiliar speakers. We found that performance was significantly impaired for spontaneous laughter, a vocalization produced under reduced volitional control. We additionally found that the detection of identity-related information fails to generalize across different types of nonverbal vocalizations (e.g., laughter vs. vowels) and across mismatches in volitional control within vocalization pairs (e.g., volitional laughter vs. spontaneous laughter), with performance levels indicating an inability to discriminate between speakers. In a second experiment, we explored whether personal familiarity with the speakers would afford greater accuracy and better generalization of identity perception. Using new stimuli, we largely replicated our previous findings: whereas familiarity afforded a consistent performance advantage for speaker discriminations, the experimental manipulations impaired performance to similar extents for familiar and unfamiliar listener groups. We discuss our findings with reference to prototype-based models of voice processing and suggest potential underlying mechanisms and representations of familiar and unfamiliar voice perception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 17(6) of Emotion (see record 2017-18585-001). In the article, the copyright attribution was incorrectly listed and the Creative Commons CC-BY license disclaimer was incorrectly omitted from the author note. The correct copyright is "© 2017 The Author(s)" and the omitted disclaimer is below. All versions of this article have been corrected. "This article has been published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s). Author(s) grant(s) the American Psychological Association the exclusive right to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher."] Emotions are a vital component of social communication, carried across a range of modalities and via different perceptual signals such as specific muscle contractions in the face and in the upper respiratory system. Previous studies have found that emotion recognition impairments after brain damage depend on the modality of presentation: recognition from faces may be impaired whereas recognition from voices remains preserved, and vice versa. On the other hand, there is also evidence for shared neural activation during emotion processing in both modalities. In a behavioral study, we investigated whether there are shared representations in the recognition of emotions from faces and voices. We used a within-subjects design in which participants rated the intensity of facial expressions and nonverbal vocalizations for each of the 6 basic emotion labels. For each participant and each modality, we then computed a representation matrix with the intensity ratings of each emotion. These matrices allowed us to examine the patterns of confusions between emotions and to characterize the representations of emotions within each modality. We then compared the representations across modalities by computing the correlations of the representation matrices across faces and voices. We found highly correlated matrices across modalities, which suggest similar representations of emotions across faces and voices. We also showed that these results could not be explained by commonalities between low-level visual and acoustic properties of the stimuli. We thus propose that there are similar or shared coding mechanisms for emotions which may act independently of modality, despite their distinct perceptual inputs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).