The Effect of Aural and Visual Presentation Formats on Categorical and Dimensional Judgements of Emotion for Sung and Spoken Expressive Performances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of visual information on the perception of emotion in three contexts: a short spoken phrase, an analogous short melody, and a longer melody with greater complexity of pitch and rhythm. Participants without substantial formal music training were assigned to either an audio-only, visual-only, or audiovisual presentation mode; all observed musicians and actors who sang melodies or spoke phrases intending to communicate happiness, sadness, or anger. Participants rated these performances for positive and negative valence, energy arousal, and tension arousal. They were also asked to select the discrete emotion they perceived, and to rate how certain they were about this selection. Participants perceived energy arousal and tension arousal as fairly distinct features of the performances and the performances were perceived as having clear dimensional characteristics based on intended emotion (e.g., happy performances had the highest positive valence, lowest negative valence, etc.). Regarding presentation, participants in the audiovisual mode categorized emotional intentions with greater accuracy than those in the others. Although ratings of negative valence, energy, and tension ratings were more extreme for actors than for musicians, participants were most in agreement about the valence of the actors’ sung performances.
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 | 0.001 | 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".