↓ Skip to main content

Do Women's Voices Provide Cues of the Likelihood of Ovulation? The Importance of Sampling Regime

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
26 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Do Women's Voices Provide Cues of the Likelihood of Ovulation? The Importance of Sampling Regime
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0024490
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia Fischer, Stuart Semple, Gisela Fickenscher, Rebecca Jürgens, Eberhard Kruse, Michael Heistermann, Ofer Amir

Abstract

The human voice provides a rich source of information about individual attributes such as body size, developmental stability and emotional state. Moreover, there is evidence that female voice characteristics change across the menstrual cycle. A previous study reported that women speak with higher fundamental frequency (F0) in the high-fertility compared to the low-fertility phase. To gain further insights into the mechanisms underlying this variation in perceived attractiveness and the relationship between vocal quality and the timing of ovulation, we combined hormone measurements and acoustic analyses, to characterize voice changes on a day-to-day basis throughout the menstrual cycle. Voice characteristics were measured from free speech as well as sustained vowels. In addition, we asked men to rate vocal attractiveness from selected samples. The free speech samples revealed marginally significant variation in F0 with an increase prior to and a distinct drop during ovulation. Overall variation throughout the cycle, however, precluded unequivocal identification of the period with the highest conception risk. The analysis of vowel samples revealed a significant increase in degree of unvoiceness and noise-to-harmonic ratio during menstruation, possibly related to an increase in tissue water content. Neither estrogen nor progestogen levels predicted the observed changes in acoustic characteristics. The perceptual experiments revealed a preference by males for voice samples recorded during the pre-ovulatory period compared to other periods in the cycle. While overall we confirm earlier findings in that women speak with a higher and more variable fundamental frequency just prior to ovulation, the present study highlights the importance of taking the full range of variation into account before drawing conclusions about the value of these cues for the detection of ovulation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 2%
United States 2 1%
Romania 2 1%
Hungary 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 123 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Master 14 10%
Lecturer 8 6%
Other 35 26%
Unknown 27 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 24%
Psychology 31 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 7%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Linguistics 3 2%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 35 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 September 2023.
All research outputs
#654,663
of 25,782,917 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#8,778
of 224,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,472
of 142,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#83
of 2,559 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,782,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 142,205 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,559 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.