Speak or shout? Nonverbal vocalizations ensure rapid detection of emotions in vocal communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Human vocal expressions of emotion can be expressed nonverbally, through vocalizations such as shouts or laughter, or speakers can embed emotional meanings in language by modifying their tone of voice (“prosody”). Is there evidence that nonverbal expressions promote “better” (i.e., more accurate, faster) recognition of emotions than speech, and what is the impact of language experience? Our study investigated these questions using a cross-cultural gating paradigm, in which Chinese and Arab listeners (n=25/group) judged the emotion communicated by acoustic events that varied in duration (200 milliseconds to the full expression) and form (vocalizations or prosody expressed in listeners’ native, second or foreign language). Accuracy was higher for vocalizations overall, but listeners were markedly more efficient to form stable categorical representations of the speaker’s emotion from vocalizations (M = 417ms) than native prosody (M = 765ms). Language experience enhanced recognition of emotional prosody expressed by native/ingroup speakers for some listeners (Chinese) but not all (Arab), emphasizing the dynamic interplay of socio-cultural factors and stimulus quality on prosody recognition which occurs over a more sustained time window. Our data show that vocalizations are functionally suited to build robust, rapid impressions of a speaker’s emotion state unconstrained by the listener’s linguistic cultural background.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".