“…Several compatible mechanisms have been proposed to account for this effect: 1) the higher f0 after voiceless obstruents could be attributable to an increased longitudinal tension of the vocal folds to suppress voicing (Löfqvist, Baer, McGarr, & Story, 1989;Hoole & Honda, 2011), 2) the lower f0 after voiced obstruents could be a secondary effect of lowering of the larynx to increase the transglottal pressure differential (Ohala, 1972;Ewan & Krones, 1974;Honda, Hirai, Masaki, & Shimada, 1999;Proctor, Shadle, & Iskarous, 2010;Hoole & Honda, 2011;Solé, 2018), or 3) there could be an auditory association between voicing and a 'low frequency effect' (Kingston & Diehl, 1994;Kingston, Diehl, Kirk, & Castleman, 2008). There is also acoustic and perceptual evidence that a lower F1 follows voiced stops (House & Fairbanks, 1953;Stevens & House, 1956;Stevens & Klatt, 1974;Lisker, 1975;Hillenbrand, Clark, & Nearey, 2001;Esposito, 2002), which could be attributed, again, to tongue-root advancement or larynx lowering to increase the transglottal pressure differential or the low frequency effect (Bell-Berti, 1975;Lindau, 1979;Kingston & Diehl, 1994;Hillenbrand, et al, 2001;Kingston et al, 2008;Brunelle, 2010;Ahn, 2018). Finally, the lengthening of vowels in the vicinity of voiced stops has been explained as an auditory strategy to create the impression of a shorter closure, thus favoring the perception of voicing (Kluender, Diehl, & Wright, 1988).…”