Why do large dogs sound more aggressive to human listeners: Acoustic bases of motivational misattributions

Ethology

Volumn 116, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1155-1162

  Taylor, Anna M ^a   Reby, David ^a   McComb, Karen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGGRESSION; BIOACOUSTICS; BODY SIZE; CANID; PERCEPTION; SONG;

CANIS FAMILIARIS;

EID: 78349244014     PISSN: 01791613     EISSN: 14390310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01829.x     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Boersma, P. 1993: Accurate short-term analysis of the fundamental frequency and the harmonics-to-noise ratio in a sampled sound. Proc Inst Phonet Sci, Univ. of Amsterdam 17, 97-110.
2. Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. 1996: Praat: a system for doing phonetics by computer. Technical Report 132, Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the Univ. of Amsterdam.
3. Bradshaw, J. W. S. & Nott, H. M. R. 1995: Social and communication behaviour of the dog. In: The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions with People (Serpell, J., ed.). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp. 116-130.
4. Bruckert, L., Lienard, J.-S., Lacroix, A., Kreutzser, M. & Leboucher, G. 2006: Women use voice parameters to assess men's characteristics. Proc. R. Soc. B. 273, 83-89.
5. Chuenwattanapranithi, S., Xu, Y., Thipakorn, B. & Maneewongvatana, S. 2008: Encoding emotions in speech with the size code a perceptual investigation. Phonetica 65, 210-230.
6. Cohen, J. A. & Fox, M. W. 1976: Vocalisations in wild canids and possible effects of domestication. Behav. Process 1, 77-92.
7. Collins, S. A. 2000: Men's voices and woman's choices. Anim. Behav. 60, 773-780.
8. Coppinger, R. & Feinstein, M. 1991: Hark-hark, the dogs do bark and bark. Smithsonian 21, 119-129.
9. Van Dommelen, W. A. 1993: Speaker height and weight identification: re-evaluation of some old data. J. Phonetics 21, 337-341.
10. Feighny, J. J., Williamson, K. E. & Clarke, J. A. 2006: North American elk bugle vocalisations: male and female bugle call structure and context. J. Mammal. 87, 1072-1077.
11. Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Burt, D. M. & Perrett, D. I. 2005: Manipulations of fundamental and formant frequencies influence the attractiveness of human male voices. Anim. Behav. 69, 561-568.
12. Fitch, W. T. 1997: Vocal tract length and formant frequency dispersion correlate with body size in rhesus macaques. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102, 1213-1222.
13. Fitch, W. T. & Hauser, M. D. 2002: Unpacking "honesty": vertebrate vocal production and the evolution of acoustic signals. In: Acoustic Communication (Simmons, A. M., Fay, R. R. & Popper, A. N., eds). Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 65-137.
14. Gelfand, S. A. 1990: Hearing: An Introduction to Psychological and Physiological Acoustics, 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York and Basel.
15. Goncharoff, V. & Gries, P. 1998: An algorithm for accurately marking pitch pulses in speech signals. Proceedings of the International Conference on Signal and Image Processing 1998. Retrieved on 08/27/2007 from
16. Hauser, M. D. 1993: The evolution of nonhuman primate vocalisations: effects of phylogeny, body weight and social context. Am. Nat. 142, 528-542.
17. Kidjo, A., Cargnelutti, B., Charlton, B. D., Wilson, C. & Reby, D. 2008: Vocal behaviour in the endangered Corsican deer: description and phylogenetic implications. Bioacoustics 18, 159-181.
18. Kunzel, H. 1989: How well does average fundamental frequency correlate with speaker height and weight? Phonetica 46, 117-125.
19. Marós, K., Pongrácz, P., Bárdos, G., Molnár, C., Faragó, T. & Miklósi, A. 2008: Dogs can discriminate barks from different situations. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 114, 159-167.
20. Masataka, N. 1994: Lack of correlation between body size and frequency of vocalisations in young female Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata). Folia Primatol. 63, 115-118.
21. Molnár, C., Pongrácz, P., Dóka, A. & Miklósi, A. 2006: Can humans discriminate between dogs on the base of the acoustic parameters of barks? Behav. Process 73, 76-83.
22. Morton, E. S. 1977: On the occurrence and significance of motivation-structural rules in some birds and mammal sounds. Am. Nat. 111, 855-869.
23. Ohala, J. J. 1984: An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice. Phonetica 41, 1-16.
24. Ohala, J. J. 1996: Ethological theory and the expression of emotion in the voice. Proceedings International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, October 3-6, Philadelphia, 1996, Vol. 3, pp. 1812-1815.
25. Owings, D. H. & Morton, E. S. 1998: Animal Vocal Communication: A New Approach. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
26. Pongrácz, P., Molnár, C., Miklósi, A. & Csányi, V. 2005: Human listeners are able to classify dog (Canis familiaris) barks recorded in different situations. J. Comp. Psychol. 119, 136-144.
27. Pongrácz, P., Molnár, C. & Miklósi, A. 2006: Acoustic parameters of dog barks carry emotional infor-mation for humans. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 100, 228-240.
28. Reby, D. & McComb, K. 2003: Vocal communication and reproduction in deer. Adv. Stud. Behav. 33, 231-264.
29. Rendall, D., Kollias, S., Ney, C. & Lloyd, P. 2005: Pitch (F0) and formant profiles of human vowels and vowel-like baboon grunts: the role of vocalizer body size and voice-acoustic allometry. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 944-955.
30. Rendall, D., Vokey, J. R. & Nemeth, C. 2007: Lifting the curtain on the Wizard of Oz: biased voice-based impressions of speaker size. J. Exp. Psychol. 33, 1208-1219.
31. Riede, T. & Fitch, T. 1999: Vocal tract length and acoustics of vocalisation in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). J. Exp. Biol. 202, 2859-2867.
32. Sachs, J., Lieberman, P. & Erikson, D. 1972: Anatomical and cultural determinants of male and female speech. In: Language Attitudes: Current Trends and Prospects (Shuy, R. W. & Fasol, R. W., eds). Georgetown Univ. Press, Washington, DC, pp. 74-84.
33. Smith, D. R. R., Patterson, R. D., Turner, R., Kawahara, H. & Irino, T. 2005: The processing and perception of size information in speech sounds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 305-318.
34. Taylor, A. M. & Reby, D. 2010: The contribution of source-filter theory to mammal vocal communication research. J. Zool. 280, 221-236.
35. Taylor, A. M., Reby, D. & McComb, K. 2008: Human listeners attend to size information in domestic dog growls. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123, 2903-2929.
36. Taylor, A. M., Reby, D. & McComb, K. 2009: Context-related variation in the vocal growling behaviour of the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Ethology 115, 905-915.
37. Taylor, A. M., Reby, D. & McComb, K. 2010: Attendance to acoustic cues to body size in domestic dogs. Anim. Behav. 79, 205-210.
38. Tembrock, G. 1976: Canid vocalisations. Behav. Process 1, 57-75.
39. Yin, S. 2002: A new perspective on barking in dogs (Canis familiaris). J. Comp. Psychol. 116, 189-193.
40. Yin, S. & McCowan, B. 2004: Barking in domestic dogs: context specificity and individual identification. Anim. Behav. 68, 343-355.