Mantled howler monkey males assess their rivals through formant spacing of long-distance calls

Formant frequency spacing of long-distance vocalizations is allometrically related to body size and could represent an honest signal of fighting potential. There is, however, only limited evidence that primates use formant spacing to assess the competitive potential of rivals during interactions with extragroup males, a risky context. We hypothesized that if formant spacing of long-distance calls is inversely related to the fighting potential of male mantled howler monkeys (Alouatta palliata), then males should: (1) be more likely and (2) faster to display vocal responses to calling rivals; (3) be more likely and (4) faster to approach calling rivals; and have higher fecal (5) glucocorticoid and (6) testosterone metabolite concentrations in response to rivals calling at intermediate and high formant spacing than to those with low formant spacing. We studied the behavioral responses of 11 adult males to playback experiments of long-distance calls from unknown individuals with low (i.e., emulating large individuals), intermediate, and high (i.e., small individuals) formant spacing (n = 36 experiments). We assayed fecal glucocorticoid and testosterone metabolite concentrations (n = 174). Playbacks always elicited vocal responses, but males responded quicker to intermediate than to low formant spacing playbacks. Low formant spacing calls were less likely to elicit approaches whereas high formant spacing calls resulted in quicker approaches. Males showed stronger hormonal responses to low than to both intermediate and high formant spacing calls. It is possible that males do not escalate conflicts with rivals with low formant spacing calls if these are perceived as large, and against whom winning probabilities should decrease and confrontation costs increase; but are willing to escalate conflicts with rivals of high formant spacing. Formant spacing may therefore be an important signal for rival assessment in this species.

Effects of Vibratory Source on Auditory-Perceptual and Bio-Inspired Computational Measures of Pediatric Voice Quality

OBJECTIVE

The vibratory source for voicing in children with dysphonia is classified into three categories including a glottal vibratory source (GVS) observed in those with vocal lesions or hyperfunction; supraglottal vibratory sources (SGVS) observed secondary to laryngeal airway injuries, malformations, or reconstruction surgeries; and a combination of both glottal and supraglottal vibratory sources called mixed vibratory source (MVS). This study evaluated the effects of vibratory source on three primary dimensions of voice quality (breathiness, roughness, and strain) in children with GVS, SGVS, and MVS using single-variable matching tasks and computational measures obtained from bio-inspired auditory models.

METHODS

A total of 44 dysphonic voice samples from children aged 4-11 years were selected. Seven listeners rated breathiness, roughness, and strain of 1000-ms /ɑ/ samples using single-variable matching tasks. Computational estimates of pitch strength, amplitude modulation filterbank output, and sharpness were obtained through custom-designed MATLAB algorithms.

RESULTS

Perceived roughness and strain were significantly higher in children with SGVS and MVS compared to children with GVS. Among the computational measures, only the modulation filterbank output resulted in significant differences among vibratory sources; a posthoc test revealed that children with SGVS had greater amplitude modulation than children with GVS, as expected from their rougher voice quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that the output of an auditory amplitude modulation filterbank model may capture characteristics of SGVS that are strongly related to the rough voice quality.

Snoring: is a reliable assessment possible?

Purpose

It is not easy to assess how severe and annoying a patient’s snoring is. Solid parameters are lacking; snorers cannot deliver a reliable self-assessment and it is uncertain whether bed partners’ statements can be relied upon. The purpose of the present study was therefore to investigate whether and how well snoring assessment based on acoustic parameters and bed partners’ reporting agree.

Methods

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study on snoring treatment, several acoustic parameters [snoring index (SI), percentage snoring time (ST), sound pressure level, sound energy, loudness, psychoacoustic annoyance and psychoacoustic snore score (PSS)] were measured in 18 subjects during 24 polysomnographies. Bed partners also assessed snoring annoyance and loudness as well as treatment outcome.

Results

No correlation was found between the subjective annoyance caused by snoring and the acoustic parameters. Regarding perceived loudness, there was a moderate, significant correlation with loudness (N₅) and PSS over the hour with the highest SI. SI, ST, LAeq and maximum sound pressure level dB(A)_max showed no significant correlation. After the intervention only mean sound energy LAeq over the entire night showed a significant correlation (r_s = 0.782; p = 0.022) with bed partners’ assessments. However, this result was not confirmed in the second control night.

Conclusions

The non-existent or only weak correlation between bed partners’ ratings and objective parameters indicate that snoring severity should be evaluated with caution. Neither acoustic parameters, at least for one measurement over just one night, nor bed partners’ ratings should be used as the sole basis for snoring assessment.