How Much Does the Dynamic F0 Curve Affect the Expression of Emotion in Utterances?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The modulation of vocal elements, such as pitch, loudness, and duration, plays a crucial role in conveying both linguistic information and the speaker’s emotional state. While acoustic features like fundamental frequency (F0) variability have been widely studied in emotional speech analysis, accurately classifying emotion remains challenging due to the complex and dynamic nature of vocal expressions. Traditional analytical methods often oversimplify these dynamics, potentially overlooking intricate patterns indicative of specific emotions. This study examines the influences of emotion and temporal variation on dynamic F0 contours in the analytical framework, utilizing a dataset valuable for its diverse emotional expressions. However, the analysis is constrained by the limited variety of sentences employed, which may affect the generalizability of the findings to broader linguistic contexts. We utilized the Ryerson Audio-Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song (RAVDESS), focusing on eight distinct emotional states performed by 24 professional actors. Sonorant segments were extracted, and F0 measurements were converted into semitones relative to a 100 Hz baseline to standardize pitch variations. By employing Generalized Additive Mixed Models (GAMMs), we modeled non-linear trajectories of F0 contours over time, accounting for fixed effects (emotions) and random effects (individual speaker variability). Our analysis revealed that incorporating emotion-specific, non-linear time effects and individual speaker differences significantly improved the model’s explanatory power, ultimately explaining up to 66.5% of the variance in the F0. The inclusion of random smooths for time within speakers captured individual temporal modulation patterns, providing a more accurate representation of emotional speech dynamics. The results demonstrate that dynamic modeling of F0 contours using GAMMs enhances the accuracy of emotion classification in speech. This approach captures the nuanced pitch patterns associated with different emotions and accounts for individual variability among speakers. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the vocal expression of emotions and offer valuable insights for advancing speech emotion recognition systems.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".