Music performance anxiety can be facilitating or debilitating: Emotion accompaniment makes the difference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Music performance anxiety (MPA) is most often defined as a negative experience that is harmful to successful performance, but potential facilitating effects of MPA often are acknowledged. The distinction between facilitating and debilitating effects often is attributed to various cognitive frameworks based on the quantity of anxiety, where smaller amounts may be helpful and larger amounts harmful. The hypothesis underlying the present study holds that the difference between facilitating and debilitating MPA is more a matter of quality than quantity, specifically the qualities associated with the other positive and negative emotions that accompany MPA. A web survey recruited 114 musicians to test for differences in MPA and accompanying emotions by responding to descriptions of four specific musical contexts. Results show that between roughly one-quarter and one-half of the musicians in the study viewed MPA as facilitating, depending on context. Respondents endorsing the facilitating quality of MPA (compared with the debilitating group) showed significantly higher levels of positive emotion accompanied by lower levels of both MPA and negative emotion in three of four contexts. Results are interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that emotions accompanying MPA shape the quality of its effect on musical performance.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".