Additionally, we used General Linear Models (GLM) to test for possible effects of sex, age, and country on voice attractiveness ratings. Similarly, to test whether mean F0, range F0, and VTL of speech and singing differ between men and women or between Brazilian and Czech participants, we performed a multivariate GLM with mean F0 and F0 range as dependent variables and sex and country of targets as factors. Due to a limited samples size, we evaluated only simple models. The effect size displayed is a partial Eta-squared (?p 2 ).
Results
We found large effects of targets’ sex on all vocal parameters; mean speech F0 (F = , df = 1, 153, p 2 = 0.878), mean speech F0 range (F = , df = 1, 153, p 2 = 0.086), VTL as measured from speech (F = , df = 1,153, p 2 = 0.934), mean singing F0 (F = , df = 1, 153, p 2 = 0.831), mean singing F0 range (F = 7.00, df = 1, 153, p = 0.009, ?p 2 = 0.045), and VTL as measured from singing (F = , df = 1, 153, p 2 = 0.911). Estimated marginal means revealed that women had a higher F0 and F0 range and shorter VTL than men (for mean values, see Table 1). There was also a significant effect of the target country on speech F0 range (F = 4.31, df = 1, 153, p = 0.040, ?p 2 = 0.028), VTL as measured from speech (F = , df = 1,153, p = 0.001, ?p 2 = 0.065), and VTL as measured from singing (F = 6.59, df = 1, 153, p = 0.011, ?p 2 = 0.042). Estimated marginal means show that Czech participants had a lower speech F0 range and longer VTL than the Brazilian participants (see Table 1 for details).
Dining table 1. Mean simple volume (F0) in addition to selection of simple regularity (F0 assortment) into the semitones, and you may 
VTL (into the centimeters) during the visitors.
It’s worth listing that the average VTL measures for men and ladies (Desk step 1) compare with society-top averages (Pisanski mais aussi al., 2014).
Comparisons Between Speaking and you can Singing Voice
F0 mentioned regarding message was strongly undoubtedly correlated that have F0 counted from singing in both people (roentgen = 0.800, N = 73, p 2 = , df = forty-two, p 2 = , df = 44, p = 0.twenty-six within the boys, ? 2 = , df = forty-two, p = 0.05 in females). Results are for this reason reported alone for men and you can female however, as you to possess Czech and you can Brazilian participants.
Playing with street study (discover Second Tables S6, S7 to possess full habits), i unearthed that inside the guys, lower-pitched address are rated as more glamorous (Contour step 1). An equivalent held out of singing, but so it matchmaking didn’t reach analytical significance. For the men, a wide message diversity, although not singing range, was rated much more glamorous. Attractive message are certainly associated with overall SOI, however, it dating failed to maintain its stability inside the jackknife resampling. The total SOI are individually linked to a lesser F0 inside speech and better F0 from inside the vocal. Fat had a robust and confident head influence on thought message and you will singing attractiveness. Ages had a poor effect on address elegance nevertheless the impression don’t will always be secure below jackknifing (pick Second Table S8).
Figure step one. Road study results for F0. Arrows portray estimated variables. Matchmaking notably distinct from 0 (indicated of the powerful permutation produced p thinking) is colored (confident matchmaking in the eco-friendly, bad into the reddish) and you will labeled which have standardized design estimates. Dating one to didn’t meet with the jackknife relevance balances conditions is actually depicted that have a beneficial dashed line. F0 = average practical regularity; WSR = waist-to-shoulder ratio; and you will WHR = waist-to-stylish ratio.
