Individual Differences in Voice Quality Perception

TLDR

Sixteen listeners (10 experts, 6 naïve) evaluated dissimilarity between pairs of pathological and normal voices, and separate nonmetric multidimensional scaling solutions were computed for each listener and voice set. Listeners’ dissimilarity ratings had low inter‑listener correlation, yet each produced reliable, meaningful scaling solutions and greater variability was seen for pathological voices, and the acoustic features used were predictable from stimulus parameters, supporting prototype models and indicating that traditional reliability assessments may be inappropriate and that explicit stimulus comparisons are essential.

Abstract

Sixteen listeners (10 expert, 6 naive) judged the dissimilarity of pairs of voices drawn from pathological and normal populations. Separate nonmetric multidimensional scaling solutions were calculated for each listener and voice set. The correlations between individual listeners’ dissimilarity ratings were low However, scaling solutions indicated that each subject judged the voices in a reliable, meaningful way. Listeners differed more from one another in their judgments of the pathological voices (which varied widely on a number of acoustic parameters) than they did for the normal voices (which formed a much more homogeneous set acoustically). The acoustic features listeners used to judge dissimilarity were predictable from the characteristics of the stimulus sets’ only parameters that showed substantial variability were perceptually salient across listeners. These results are consistent with prototype models of voice perception They suggest that traditional means of assessing listener reliability n voice perception tasks may not be appropriate, and highlight the importance of using explicit comparisons between stimuli when studying voice quality perception