| Literature DB >> 26191020 |
Bruno Mesz1, Pablo H Rodriguez Zivic2, Guillermo A Cecchi3, Mariano Sigman4, Marcos A Trevisan5.
Abstract
Musical theory has built on the premise that musical structures can refer to something different from themselves (Nattiez and Abbate, 1990). The aim of this work is to statistically corroborate the intuitions of musical thinkers and practitioners starting at least with Plato, that music can express complex human concepts beyond merely "happy" and "sad" (Mattheson and Lenneberg, 1958). To do so, we ask whether musical improvisations can be used to classify the semantic category of the word that triggers them. We investigated two specific domains of semantics: morality and logic. While morality has been historically associated with music, logic concepts, which involve more abstract forms of thought, are more rarely associated with music. We examined musical improvisations inspired by positive and negative morality (e.g., good and evil) and logic concepts (true and false), analyzing the associations between these words and their musical representations in terms of acoustic and perceptual features. We found that music conveys information about valence (good and true vs. evil and false) with remarkable consistency across individuals. This information is carried by several musical dimensions which act in synergy to achieve very high classification accuracy. Positive concepts are represented by music with more ordered pitch structure and lower harmonic and sensorial dissonance than negative concepts. Music also conveys information indicating whether the word which triggered it belongs to the domains of logic or morality (true vs. good), principally through musical articulation. In summary, improvisations consistently map logic and morality information to specific musical dimensions, testifying the capacity of music to accurately convey semantic information in domains related to abstract forms of thought.Entities:
Keywords: logic; morality; music psychology; musical structure; semantic content
Year: 2015 PMID: 26191020 PMCID: PMC4486752 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00908
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Musical emotion space. We used the MIRToolbox model of emotion rating of music audio files in the three-dimensional space of valence, activity, and tension (Eerola et al., 2009). The model uses multiple linear regression with five acoustic predictors for each emotional dimension. MIDI files were converted to audio files using Timidity. As expected, semantic valence reliably maps to valence in the musical space. Activity was affected by moral valence (good vs. evil) but not by logic valence (true vs. false), and tension was affected by semantic valence (true and good vs. false and evil) but not by semantic category (good and evil vs. true and false).
ANOVA analysis with valence (positive and negative) and domain (morality and logic) as independent factors.
| Ambitus | 12.39 | 0.05 | 0.82 | 6.27 | 0.012 | |
| Lowest note | 18.34 | 0.07 | 0.79 | 6.93 | 0.008 | |
| Duration | 5.05 | 0.037 | 2 | 0.17 | 0.12 | 0.73 |
| Velocity | 6.33 | 0.021 | 0.57 | 0.46 | 1.53 | 0.21 |
| Articulation | 2.85 | 0.1086 | 16.73 | 0.24 | 0.621 | |
| Gradus | 4.61 | 0.0455 | 0.53 | 0.47 | 2.6 | 0.1076 |
| Dissonance | 11.78 | 1.47 | 0.24 | 2.6 | 0.1076 | |
| Entropy | 14.98 | 4.8 | 0.0416 | 6.45 | 0.0114 | |
| Mel. entropy | 18.39 | 0.81 | 0.38 | 0.44 | 0.5 | |
| Roughness | 27.54 | 8.31 | 0.0095 | 54.02 | 0 | |
| Brightness | 2.44 | 0.13 | 3.55 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.8 |
| Attack time | 11.52 | 0.57 | 0.45 | 8.09 | 0.0046 | |
The analysis revealed that word valence has a significant effect in seven parameters, while word domain presents a significant effect on articulation. An interaction effect was present on roughness. A cutoff point of p < 0.004 is noted in bold type.
Figure 2Musical, structural, and acoustical parameters for morality/logic concepts. Organization of musical improvisations for three parameters, where blue codes improvisations elicited by positive logic words, light blue for positive morality, red for negative logic, and light red for negative morality. The upper panels show the relative ordering of the presented words, averaged across pianists. The lower panels show mean values and standard deviations averaged across words and pianists. Articulation (left panels) is the only dimension to significantly discriminate the morality and logic categories (light from dark tones). This parameter varies between 0 (for staccato, notes separated by silences) and 1 (for legato, no breaks between notes). Roughness (middle panels) is the only dimension showing a significant interaction, discriminating valence for morality and not for logic words. Its range goes from 0 for a pure sine wave (no partial beats) to over 400 for white noise. On the other hand, entropy (right panels) is one of the parameters that significantly discriminate valence (blues from reds). Entropy of a single repeated note is 0 and its value increases for uniformly distributed notes. The mean values of the rest of the parameters can be found at Table 1 and Figure S2.
Figure 3Machine learning classifier. A Machine Learning model was trained using the MIDI dataset of 15 pianists (480 improvisations) to predict the results of the other 4 pianists (for a total of 128 improvisations). The results shown are the average over all the combinations of training sets of 15 pianists and test sets of 4 pianists. Upper panel: F1score measuring predictability for discrimination of valences across domains (purple) and domains across valences (green). Lines indicate the joint performance of all parameters (fine-dashed for valence and dashed for category). Lower panel: F1 score measuring predictability for discrimination of positive from negative morality (light green) and positive from negative logic (dark green). Lines indicate the joint performance of all parameters.
ANOVA analysis of valence restricted to morality and logic.
| Ambitus | 28.45 | 1.99 | 0.15 | |
| Lowest note | 34.85 | 5.44 | 0.0204 | |
| Duration | 1.57 | 0.21 | 2.79 | 0.09 |
| Velocity | 4.21 | 0.041 | 0.14 | 0.7 |
| Articulation | 1.55 | 0.21 | 2.18 | 0.14 |
| Gradus | 0.92 | 0.33 | 7.63 | 0.0061 |
| Dissonance | 11.83 | 3.04 | 0.08 | |
| Entropy | 26.06 | 4.31 | 0.0388 | |
| Mel. entropy | 16.9 | 10.82 | ||
| Roughness | 54.47 | 0.41 | 0.52 | |
| Brightness | 0.3 | 0.58 | 1.36 | 0.24 |
| Attack time | 26.37 | 1.92 | 0.16 | |
The analysis revealed that the valence restricted to morailty has a significant effect in the same parameters found in Table .