The Influence of Dissonance on Listeners’ Perceived Emotions in Rhythmically Complex Musical Excerpts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the influence of dissonance on listeners’ ratings of five emotional dimensions (mood, energy, movement, dissonance, and tension) using excerpts from twentieth-century keyboard music that feature complex rhythmic structures. Dissonance was operationalized as randomized pitches from four scale types: pentatonic major, diatonic major, whole-tone, and chromatic. Register presentation of two contrasting rhythmic groups within each excerpt was counterbalanced, while rhythmic structure was held constant, resulting in 64 distinct stimuli (8 excerpts × 4 scales × 2 register conditions), from which rhythm and pitch measures were extracted. There was a main effect of scale type, but not register. Pentatonic excerpts were rated as more positive and less dissonant than diatonic, whole-tone, and chromatic excerpts. Whole-tone and chromatic were also perceived as more negative and dissonant than diatonic, as well as more tense and less entraining than both pentatonic and diatonic. There was no effect of scale on energy. Sonority dissonance was a reliable predictor of perceived dissonance and tension, as well as mood and movement. Furthermore, several rhythmic features were predictive of participants’ perceived emotions, providing support for the use of pitch-randomized naturalistic stimuli to assess the influence of musical structure on perceived emotions.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | high |
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".