Gender and masculinity–femininity ratings of tracheoesophageal speech

Influence of Speaker Gender on Listener Judgments of Tracheoesophageal Speech

“…22 Therefore, the results that listeners had difficulty identifying most female TE speakers as women might have more face validity than results from studies which only included superior speakers. 24 These findings clearly require further verification with a larger number of samples. Results gathered from a larger group of speakers would appear to have direct implications for pre-and postlaryngectomy and TE puncture counseling regarding gender identification in instances where the communication partner does not have access to visual or other contextual cues (eg, telephone conversations, instances where communication partners are not facing one another).…”

“…However, the present results were not consistent with those reported by Searl and Small. 24 They found that the gender of female TE speakers was identified with equal accuracy as male speakers (about 90%). Although conclusions of gender identification from the present study are difficult to generalize, they have important implications.…”

“…Before making any speaker judgments, listeners were first familiarized with the gender rating scale. 24 This was a 60-mm semantic differential VAS with end points labeled as ''definitely male'' (''0'' on the scale) and ''definitely female'' (''60'' on the scale). Compared to a binary choice (male/female), the 60-mm VAS allowed for a finer description of listeners' gender identification by embedding a confidence interval into the scale itself.…”

Everyday listeners’ impressions of speech produced by individuals with adductor spasmodic dysphonia

“…A rating in the middle of the line (at 50 mm, or ''neutral'') indicated that the speaker samples were equally severe. In this way, listeners were able to indicate their relative preference for one speaker sample compared to the other; the farther from the endpoint for a given speaker sample, the more ''preferred'' (i.e., less severe) it was compared to the other speaker sample (Searl & Small, 2002). Ninety sample pairs were created (i.e., every possible combination in AB and BA orders); ten samples were repeated to determine intrarater reliability.…”

“…Each rating was then assigned to one of three categories. Scores in the middle of the range (40-60 mm) were taken to indicate no within-sample ''preference'' (Searl & Small, 2002) and were assigned to the neutral category. Scores to the left of the neutral range (i.e., less than 40 mm) indicated that Sample 1 was ''more severe'' than Sample 2; these scores were assigned to Category 1.…”