Loudness Perceptions Influence Feelings of Interpersonal Closeness and Protect Against Detrimental Psychological Effects of Social Exclusion

Perceptual (but not acoustic) features predict singing voice preferences

Why do we prefer some singers to others? We investigated how much singing voice preferences can be traced back to objective features of the stimuli. To do so, we asked participants to rate short excerpts of singing performances in terms of how much they liked them as well as in terms of 10 perceptual attributes (e.g.: pitch accuracy, tempo, breathiness). We modeled liking ratings based on these perceptual ratings, as well as based on acoustic features and low-level features derived from Music Information Retrieval (MIR). Mean liking ratings for each stimulus were highly correlated between Experiments 1 (online, US-based participants) and 2 (in the lab, German participants), suggesting a role for attributes of the stimuli in grounding average preferences. We show that acoustic and MIR features barely explain any variance in liking ratings; in contrast, perceptual features of the voices achieved around 43% of prediction. Inter-rater agreement in liking and perceptual ratings was low, indicating substantial (and unsurprising) individual differences in participants' preferences and perception of the stimuli. Our results indicate that singing voice preferences are not grounded in acoustic attributes of the voices per se, but in how these features are perceptually interpreted by listeners.

Pursuing Safety in Social Connection: A Flexibly Fluid Perspective on Risk Regulation in Relationships

People are fundamentally motivated to be included in social connections that feel safe, connections where they are consistently cared for and protected, not hurt or exploited. Romantic relationships have long played a crucial role in satisfying this fundamental need. This article reconceptualizes the risk-regulation model to argue that people draw on experiences from inside and outside their romantic relationships to satisfy their fundamental need to feel safe depending on others. We first review the direct relational cues (i.e., a partner's affectionate touch, responsive versus unresponsive behavior, and relative power) and indirect cues (i.e., bodily sensations, collective value in the eyes of others, and living conditions) that signal the current safety of social connection and motivate people to connect to others or protect themselves against them. We then review how people's chronic capacity to trust in others controls their sensitivity and reactivity to the safety cues. The article concludes with future research directions.

The Vocal Priorities of College Students With and Without Self-Reported Voice Problems

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To determine if the Vocal Priorities Questionnaire (VPQ) could be used in people who were not seeking treatment for a voice problem. To determine if the VPQ could be used to compare groups based on self-reported voice problems. To determine if vocal priorities (loudness, clarity, pitch, pitch range) vary based on self-reported voice problems.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cross-sectional study.

METHODS

An online survey that contained demographic questions, questions about self-reported voice problems, and the VPQ was distributed to undergraduate university students. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were completed to determine if the VPQ was appropriate for use in this population. Invariance testing determined if the VPQ could be used to compare groups. Cronbach's alpha determined internal consistency. An analysis of variance was conducted to compare the scores for each vocal priority across three self-reported voice problem categories: never, current, and past.

RESULTS

Responses from 285 participants were analyzed. An initial CFA found that the four-priority VPQ originally proposed did not have adequate fit indices. An EFA and modified CFA revealed that four priorities were still present, but "not having a gravelly voice" fit better with the priority of pitch, not clarity. With this model, invariance was verified and Cronbach's alpha indicated internal consistency. Loudness was the top vocal priority for 34.8%. In those with a past voice problem, clarity was scored higher compared to those with a current voice problem, F(2, 284) = 5.298, P = 0.006, and pitch range was scored higher compared to those who had never experienced a voice problem, F(2, 284) = 5.431, P = 0.005.

CONCLUSIONS

A modified four-priority version of the VPQ presented with acceptable dimensionality and invariance for college students with and without self-reported voice problems. Scores for clarity and pitch range were influenced by experiences with voice problems.