Predicting musically induced emotions from physiological inputs: linear and neural network models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Listening to music often leads to physiological responses. Do these physiological responses contain sufficient information to infer emotion induced in the listener? The current study explores this question by attempting to predict judgments of “felt” emotion from physiological responses alone using linear and neural network models. We measured five channels of peripheral physiology from 20 participants—heart rate (HR), respiration, galvanic skin response, and activity in corrugator supercilii and zygomaticus major facial muscles. Using valence and arousal (VA) dimensions, participants rated their felt emotion after listening to each of 12 classical music excerpts. After extracting features from the five channels, we examined their correlation with VA ratings, and then performed multiple linear regression to see if a linear relationship between the physiological responses could account for the ratings. Although linear models predicted a significant amount of variance in arousal ratings, they were unable to do so with valence ratings. We then used a neural network to provide a non-linear account of the ratings. The network was trained on the mean ratings of eight of the 12 excerpts and tested on the remainder. Performance of the neural network confirms that physiological responses alone can be used to predict musically induced emotion. The non-linear model derived from the neural network was more accurate than linear models derived from multiple linear regression, particularly along the valence dimension. A secondary analysis allowed us to quantify the relative contributions of inputs to the non-linear model. The study represents a novel approach to understanding the complex relationship between physiological responses and musically induced emotion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".