↓ Skip to main content

Anti-Voice Adaptation Suggests Prototype-Based Coding of Voice Identity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Anti-Voice Adaptation Suggests Prototype-Based Coding of Voice Identity
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00175
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marianne Latinus, Pascal Belin

Abstract

We used perceptual aftereffects induced by adaptation with anti-voice stimuli to investigate voice identity representations. Participants learned a set of voices then were tested on a voice identification task with vowel stimuli morphed between identities, after different conditions of adaptation. In Experiment 1, participants chose the identity opposite to the adapting anti-voice significantly more often than the other two identities (e.g., after being adapted to anti-A, they identified the average voice as A). In Experiment 2, participants showed a bias for identities opposite to the adaptor specifically for anti-voice, but not for non-anti-voice adaptors. These results are strikingly similar to adaptation aftereffects observed for facial identity. They are compatible with a representation of individual voice identities in a multidimensional perceptual voice space referenced on a voice prototype.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 86 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 31%
Researcher 15 17%
Student > Master 7 8%
Professor 6 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 11 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 36%
Neuroscience 12 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Linguistics 7 8%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 23 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2013.
All research outputs
#18,329,207
of 22,696,971 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#21,875
of 29,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,025
of 180,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#198
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,696,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,386 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.