PREreview of Unveiling the Development of Human Voice Perception: Neurobiological Mechanisms and Pathophysiology

This review is the result of a virtual, collaborative Live Review discussion organized and hosted by PREreview and the journal Current Research in Neurobiology (CRNEUR) as part of a community-based review pilot (you can read more about the pilot here). The Live Review happened on December 7, 2023 and was joined by 6 people, including 3 reviewers, 1 author, and 2 facilitators. We thank all participants who contributed to the discussion and made it possible for us to provide feedback on this preprint.

The goal of this review article is to synthesize existing literature on human development, pathology, and auditory science to further investigate how humans develop the ability to understand and recognize human voices. This includes looking at factors such as learning, language, and health conditions, to improve our understanding of normal development and address specific challenges in different groups of people. The rationale for this review is that voice processing development has received relatively little attention in the field, synthesizing existing literature and identifying recommendations of new directions future research could take. The review has three main sections - 1. The review of “adult” voice processing, 2. Developmental mechanisms, and 3. Pathology. 

In general, the review is clearly written and has clear examples that a non-specialist audience would be able to understand, however, there are some improvements which could be made to aid reader understanding. 

For example, in reading the abstract it was not immediately clear what the goal of the review was. Reviewers recommend rewording the abstract to include specific references to the goals of the review and stating the problem that the review is aiming to address more clearly. 

Additionally, adding visuals may help the reader better understand some of the key concepts put forward by the review authors. For example, the authors may consider adding a human anatomy figure showing the main brain areas referred to in the review article. Furthermore, it may be useful to see a table or graph illustrating the developmental trajectory of human voice perception in young children and infants. 

The majority of the language used is accessible to a non-specialist audience. However, it would be helpful to the reader to get some additional clarification of specific terms such as ‘voice selectivity’ and ‘voice processing’. In particular, is ‘voice processing’ an example of category coding? Does voice identification and/or discrimination differ qualitatively from other category coding? Providing a glossary of terms could be useful to provide more nuance to these terms. If the goal of the review is not to provide a review of the adult category coding literature, then the reviewers suggest the authors consider trimming down the first section of the review to get sooner to the key aspects of development.

The review article provides sufficient detail and accuracy to serve as a useful reference. It discusses relevant studies and research on the topic and, while it doesn’t go into exhaustive detail on any one study, it provides ample enough information and context for readers to understand the findings and the implications. The review article also provides plenty of references for readers to use for further research. One area for potential improvement is that the primary phenomenon referenced is an infant’s ability to recognize the mother’s voice, however, it would be interesting to know if there are any other ‘canonical’ developmental phenomena.

The review article does not explicitly raise ethical questions however it does make mention of pathophysiological states such as premature birth, hearing loss, and autism spectrum disorders. One thing to note is that the review article literature is dominated by Western/Anglo research. It would be interesting to know what other general phenomena reflecting other cultures and languages exist. This is possibly one limitation of the review. 

A further limitation is that research on animal behavior is vast and probably contains more relevant findings. This could be cited as a general area for continued exploration.

In general, the conclusions reached are supported by the studies and research referenced, however, they may be presented as tentative due to the limitations of the available literature. For example, the article notes that the exact trajectory of human voice perception maturation is not yet understood and that factors such as neural plasticity and language acquisition may interact with and modulate the development of human voice perception. The article suggests that further investigation of voice processing abilities, as well as its anatomical and mechanistic substrates, is necessary to map ontogeny more completely and to understand the underlying neural mechanisms. What are the conclusions with regard to pathophysiology? It could be beneficial to highlight what kind of research would need attention to answer some of the noted open questions. Overall, the article presents its conclusions as evidence-based but acknowledges the need for continued research to further our understanding of human voice perception and development.

We thank the authors of the preprint for posting their work openly for feedback. We also thank all participants of the Live Review for their time and for engaging in the lively discussion that generated this review.

Competing interests

The two authors of this review are members of the PREreview team and facilitated the Live Review. They synthesized the notes from the Live Review discussion into this review and also contributed with a few suggestions for the preprint authors.