Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40216652›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2025

CoVox: A dataset of contrasting vocalizations.

Camila Bruder, Pauline Larrouy-Maestri

Erratum issuedAbstract readDataset
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Camila BruderMax Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Grüneburgweg 14, 60322, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany. cajmila@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7956-2679
Pauline Larrouy-MaestriMax Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics, Grüneburgweg 14, 60322, Frankfurt Am Main, Germany. plm@ae.mpg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The human voice is remarkably versatile and can vary greatly in sound depending on how it is used. An increasing number of studies have addressed the differences and similarities between the singing and the speaking voice. However, finding adequate stimuli material that is at the same time controlled and ecologically valid is challenging, and most datasets lack variability in terms of vocal styles performed by the same voice. Here, we describe a curated stimulus set of vocalizations where 22 female singers performed the same melody excerpts in three contrasting singing styles (as a lullaby, as a pop song, and as an opera aria) and spoke the text aloud in two speaking styles (as if speaking to an adult or to an infant). All productions were made with the songs' original lyrics, in Brazilian Portuguese, and with a/lu/sound. This ecologically valid dataset of 1320 vocalizations was validated through a forced-choice lab experiment (N = 25 for each stimulus) where lay listeners could recognize the intended vocalization style with high accuracy (proportion of correct recognition superior to 69% for all styles). We also provide acoustic characterization of the stimuli, depicting clear and contrasting acoustic profiles depending on the style of vocalization. All recordings are made freely available under a Creative Commons license and can be downloaded at https://osf.io/cgexn/ .

Indexed as

SingingVoiceAcousticsAdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedSpeechYoung AdultAcousticsCorpusSingingSpeechVoice

Identifiers

PMID40216652
PMCPMC11991967

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.