The experience of music emotion in older adults with hearing loss and hearing aids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined the effect of hearing loss and hearing aids in older adults on the experience of music emotion. Fifty-four participants aged 60 and above were recruited, including 18 with normal hearing (NH), 18 with hearing impairment (HI), and 18 with hearing impairment who use hearing aids (HA). Arousal ratings and skin conductance responses were obtained from participants across 24 extracts of film music that were previously validated as conveying one of four emotions: happy, sad, fearful, and tender. These four emotions represent a crossing of arousal (high and low) and valence (positive and negative). For each group, an “arousal range” was calculated as the average arousal ratings of happy and fearful excerpts, minus the average arousal ratings of tender and sad excerpts. A similar scheme was used for each group to determine a “skin conductance range”. For negatively-valenced music, groups did not differ with regard to arousal of skin conductance. For positively valenced music, NH and HA yielded a larger arousal range than did HI. A similar pattern emerged from the analysis of skin conductance range. Results will be discussed with regard to the acoustic cues to emotion in music and signal processing methods in hearing aids.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".