| Literature DB >> 24065950 |
Katja N Spreckelmeyer1, Eckart Altenmüller, Hans Colonius, Thomas F Münte.
Abstract
Musical emotion can be conveyed by subtle variations in timbre. Here, we investigated whether the brain is capable to discriminate tones differing in emotional expression by recording event-related potentials (ERPs) in an oddball paradigm under preattentive listening conditions. First, using multidimensional Fechnerian scaling, pairs of violin tones played with a happy or sad intonation were rated same or different by a group of non-musicians. Three happy and three sad tones were selected for the ERP experiment. The Fechnerian distances between tones within an emotion were in the same range as the distances between tones of different emotions. In two conditions, either 3 happy and 1 sad or 3 sad and 1 happy tone were presented in pseudo-random order. A mismatch negativity for the emotional deviant was observed, indicating that in spite of considerable perceptual differences between the three equiprobable tones of the standard emotion, a template was formed based on timbral cues against which the emotional deviant was compared. Based on Juslin's assumption of redundant code usage, we propose that tones were grouped together, because they were identified as belonging to one emotional category based on different emotion-specific cues. These results indicate that the brain forms an emotional memory trace at a preattentive level and thus, extends previous investigations in which emotional deviance was confounded with physical dissimilarity. Differences between sad and happy tones were observed which might be due to the fact that the happy emotion is mostly communicated by suprasegmental features.Entities:
Keywords: event-related potential; mismatch negativity; multidimensional scaling; musical emotion; preattentive processing; timbre
Year: 2013 PMID: 24065950 PMCID: PMC3779798 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00656
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Features of the stimulus material.
| tone01 | 1676 | 559.69 (2.41) | 64.5 |
| tone02 | 1526 | 558.99 (2.04) | 66.2 |
| tone03 | 1658 | 559.98 (4.45) | 72.2 |
| tone04 | 1628 | 554.39 (3.55) | 71.6 |
| tone05 | 1506 | 555.86 (1.13) | 68.8 |
| tone06 | 1534 | 561.86 (4.35) | 68.5 |
| tone07 | 1660 | 563.00 (4.58) | 66.6 |
| tone08 | 1630 | 561.31 (3.61) | 67.8 |
| tone09 | 1570 | 556.96 (1.25) | 72.4 |
| tone10 | 1608 | 557.64 (0.35) | 68.8 |
| Mean ( | 1599 (61.5) | 559.3 (2.75) | 68.74 (2.66) |
Discrimination probabilities for the 10 tones.
| t.01 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 1 | 0.89 | 0.74 | 0.81 | 0.86 | 0.94 | 0.88 | 0.89 |
| t.02 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 0.98 | 0.91 | 0.69 | 0.72 | 0.85 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.93 |
| t.03 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.04 | 0.93 | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.98 | 0.95 |
| t.04 | 0.9 | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.08 | 0.82 | 0.42 | 0.51 | 0.64 | 0.6 | 0.96 |
| t.05 | 0.7 | 0.77 | 1 | 0.84 | 0.08 | 0.79 | 0.85 | 0.91 | 0.78 | 0.74 |
| t.06 | 0.89 | 0.8 | 0.94 | 0.62 | 0.93 | 0.07 | 0.3 | 0.35 | 0.74 | 0.79 |
| t.07 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.97 | 0.69 | 0.86 | 0.41 | 0.09 | 0.2 | 0.89 | 0.93 |
| t.08 | 0.9 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.75 | 0.9 | 0.31 | 0.16 | 0.1 | 0.86 | 0.83 |
| t.09 | 0.88 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.66 | 0.82 | 0.77 | 0.8 | 0.76 | 0.08 | 0.26 |
| t.10 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 1 | 0.91 | 0.65 | 0.77 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.34 | 0.06 |
Given are probabilities with which the mean perceiver judged the row tones to be different from the column tones.
Fechnerian distances.
| t.01 | 0.000 | 0.140 | 1.890 | 1.650 | 1.290 | 1.510 | 1.630 | 1.670 | 1.620 | 1.680 |
| t.02 | 0.140 | 0.000 | 1.830 | 1.680 | 1.290 | 1.370 | 1.590 | 1.620 | 1.660 | 1.730 |
| t.03 | 1.890 | 1.830 | 0.000 | 1.770 | 1.850 | 1.760 | 1.690 | 1.680 | 1.820 | 1.850 |
| t.04 | 1.650 | 1.680 | 1.770 | 0.000 | 1.500 | 0.890 | 1.030 | 1.190 | 1.100 | 1.550 |
| t.05 | 1.290 | 1.290 | 1.850 | 1.500 | 0.000 | 1.570 | 1.540 | 1.630 | 1.440 | 1.250 |
| t.06 | 1.510 | 1.370 | 1.760 | 0.890 | 1.570 | 0.000 | 0.550 | 0.490 | 1.360 | 1.430 |
| t.07 | 1.630 | 1.590 | 1.690 | 1.030 | 1.540 | 0.550 | 0.000 | 0.170 | 1.520 | 1.660 |
| t.08 | 1.670 | 1.620 | 1.680 | 1.190 | 1.630 | 0.490 | 0.170 | 0.000 | 1.440 | 1.490 |
| t.09 | 1.620 | 1.660 | 1.820 | 1.100 | 1.440 | 1.360 | 1.520 | 1.440 | 0.000 | 0.460 |
| t.10 | 1.680 | 1.730 | 1.850 | 1.550 | 1.250 | 1.430 | 1.660 | 1.490 | 0.460 | 0.000 |
Distances were calculated by FSDOS (the larger the value the more distant the tones).
Results of the affect, arousal, and valence ratings.
| tone01 | 1.90 (0.61) | 1.75 (0.42) | 2.80 (1.40) | sad01 |
| tone02 | 1.95 (0.61) | 1.90 (0.66) | 3.20 (0.98) | sad02 |
| tone03 | 4.40 (0.94) | 4.55 (0.44) | 3.55 (0.90) | |
| tone04 | 2.90 (0.39) | 3.15 (1.00) | 3.35 (0.67) | |
| tone05 | 2.20 (0.71) | 1.80 (0.54) | 2.70 (0.63) | sad03 |
| tone06 | 2.70 (0.59) | 3.00 (0.62) | 3.25 (0.49) | |
| tone07 | 3.45 (0.98) | 2.95 (0.55) | 2.95 (0.44) | hap01 |
| tone08 | 3.60 (0.77) | 3.20 (0.71) | 3.30 (0.63) | hap02 |
| tone09 | 3.35 (0.71) | 3.40 (0.81) | 3.25 (1.03) | hap03 |
| tone10 | 2.55 (0.55) | 2.80 (0.63) | 2.70 (1.01) |
Each scale ranged from 1 to 5; last column gives the label of the tone for the MMN study.
Figure 1Grand average ERPs for condition (A) (top) and (B) (bottom); the respective standard-ERP (bold line) is depicted with the ERP to the emotionally deviating tone when it was presented as deviant (dotted line) or as standard in the other condition (dashed line). Highlighted time windows mark significant differences in both standard-deviant comparisons.
Comparison of standard vs. deviant stimuli.
| Condition A | Sad standards | HAP02 | 0.93 | 2.40 | 7.32 |
| Condition B | Happy standards | SAD01 | 0.06 | 10.94 | 0.00 |
| Across conditions | HAP02 as std. | HAP02 | 0.27 | 0.55 | 9.20 |
| Across conditions | SAD01 as std. | SAD01 | 3.04 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
Given are the F-values (df = 1,15).
p < 0.01;
p< 0.05.
Figure 2Spline-interpolated isovoltage maps depicting the mean amplitude of the “happy deviant minus sad standard” difference wave from condition A. A typical frontal maximum was observed. The polarity inversion at temporobasal electrodes suggests that this response belongs to the MMN family.
Figure 3Arrangement of tones in a three dimensional space based on the multidimensional scaling procedure. Note that orientation of dimensions is arbitrary.
Fechnerian distances as calculated from same-different-judgments of emotional expression for the 10 tones.
| t.01 | 0.000 | 0.012 | 1.763 | 1.003 | 0.491 | 0.943 | 1.103 | 1.003 | 1.072 | 0.983 |
| t.02 | 0.012 | 0.000 | 1.751 | 0.991 | 0.503 | 0.931 | 1.091 | 0.991 | 1.072 | 0.971 |
| t.03 | 1.763 | 1.751 | 0.000 | 1.390 | 1.700 | 1.040 | 0.880 | 0.990 | 1.420 | 1.560 |
| t.04 | 1.003 | 0.991 | 1.390 | 0.000 | 0.820 | 0.580 | 0.630 | 0.620 | 0.600 | 0.750 |
| t.05 | 0.491 | 0.503 | 1.700 | 0.820 | 0.000 | 1.020 | 1.170 | 1.080 | 0.730 | 0.650 |
| t.06 | 0.943 | 0.931 | 1.040 | 0.580 | 1.020 | 0.000 | 0.160 | 0.060 | 0.860 | 0.850 |
| t.07 | 1.103 | 1.091 | 0.880 | 0.630 | 1.170 | 0.160 | 0.000 | 0.110 | 1.020 | 1.010 |
| t.08 | 1.003 | 0.991 | 0.990 | 0.620 | 1.080 | 0.060 | 0.110 | 0.000 | 0.920 | 0.910 |
| t.09 | 1.072 | 1.072 | 1.420 | 0.600 | 0.730 | 0.860 | 1.020 | 0.920 | 0.000 | 0.150 |
| t.10 | 0.983 | 0.971 | 1.560 | 0.750 | 0.650 | 0.850 | 1.010 | 0.910 | 0.150 | 0.000 |
Given are perceived distances of row tones and column tones with respect to their emotional expression; sad tones were t.01, t.02, and t.05, happy tones were t.07, t.08, and t.09.
Figure 4Same and different responses for tone pairs in the categories sad (left) and happy (right), respectively.
Results of the acoustical analysis of the sad tones.
| Timbre (high frequency energy) | Low | Low | Low |
| Attack | Medium | Medium | Medium |
| Mean pitch | Low | Medium | Medium |
| Pitch contour | Normal | Down | Down |
| Vibrato amplitude | Medium | Medium | Low |
| Vibrato rate | Slow | Medium | Slow |
| Sound level | Low | Medium | Medium |
Tested were parameters expected to be relevant cues to express emotion on single tones. Categorization as low, medium, and high was based on comparison with the “happy” tones.