MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4322738924 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/26yg5

Cross-cultural relationships between music, emotion, and visual imagery: A comparative study of Iran, Canada, and Japan [Stage 1 Registered Report]

2023· preprint· en· W4322738924 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shafagh Hadavi, Junji Kuroda, Taiki Shimozono, Juan David Leongómez, Patrick E. Savage

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKeio University
KeywordsPsychologyMusic and emotionArousalCognitive psychologyCross-culturalMusicalPerceptionContrast (vision)Active listeningSocial psychologyCommunicationVisual artsMusic historyMusic educationArtSociologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many people experience emotions and visual imagery while listening to music. Previous research has identified cross-modal associations between musical and visual features as well as cross-cultural links between music and emotion and between music and visual imagery. However, few studies have simultaneously investigated cross-cultural links between music, visual imagery, and emotion in order to distinguish the role of cultural experiences in contrast to more widespread perceptual capabilities. In this study, we investigate the relationship between emotional arousal and visual density induced by 6 musical excerpts differing in tempo and texture (solo vs group) in 72 participants from Japan, Iran, and Canada (24 each). We hypothesize that there are cross-culturally consistent relationships between tempo changes and 1) visual density associations, and 2) arousal ratings. The aim of this study is to understand whether relationships between music, emotion, and visual imagery are cross-culturally consistent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.322
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.088 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeuroscience and Music Perception→French-language works237,207→