Analysis of the relationship between emotion intensity and electrophysiology parameters during a voice examination of opera singers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Emotions and stress affect voice production. There are only a few reports in the literature on how changes in the autonomic nervous system affect voice production. The aim of this study was to examine emotions and measure stress reactions during a voice examination procedure, particularly changes in the muscles surrounding the larynx. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study material included 50 healthy volunteers (26 voice workers - opera singers, 24 control subjects), all without vocal complaints. All subjects had good voice quality in a perceptual assessment. The research procedure consisted of 4 parts: an ear, nose, and throat (ENT)‑phoniatric examination, surface electromyography, recording physiological indicators (heart rate and skin resistance) using a wearable wristband, and a psychological profile based on questionnaires. RESULTS: during the glissando. The perception of positive and negative emotions caused different responses not only in the vocal tract but also in the vegetative system. Correlations were found between emotions and physiological parameters, most markedly in heart rate variability. A higher incidence of extreme emotions was observed in the professional group. CONCLUSIONS: The activity of the vocal tract muscles depends on the type and intensity of the emotions and stress reactions. The perception of positive and negative emotions causes different responses in the vegetative system and the vocal tract. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2024;37(1):84-97.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".