ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2019
Categorical and Dimensional Ratings of Emotional Speech: Behavioral Findings From the Morgan Emotional Speech Set.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of stimulus amplitude-scaling approach on emotional responses to non-speech sounds.PloS one · 2025Article
- Advancing affective stimuli databases: challenges and solutions.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- Gender stereotypes and social perception of vocal confidence is mitigated by salience of socio-indexical cues to gender.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Effects of Increasing the Overall Level or Fitting Hearing Aids on Emotional Responses to Sounds.Trends in hearingArticle
- Strength in Numbers, Power in Subjectivity: Scalable Modeling of Individual Annotators for Emotion Recognition Within and Across Corpora.IEEE transactions on affective computingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose Emotion classification for auditory stimuli typically employs 1 of 2 approaches (discrete categories or emotional dimensions). This work presents a new emotional speech set, compares these 2 classification methods for emotional speech stimuli, and emphasizes the need to consider the entire communication model (i.e., the talker, message, and listener) when studying auditory emotion portrayal and perception. Method Emotional speech from male and female talkers was evaluated using both categorical and dimensional rating methods. Ten young adult listeners (ages 19-28 years) evaluated stimuli recorded in 4 emotional speaking styles (Angry, Calm, Happy, and Sad). Talker and listener factors were examined for potential influences on emotional ratings using categorical and dimensional rating methods. Listeners rated stimuli by selecting an emotion category, rating the activation and pleasantness, and indicating goodness of category fit. Results Discrete ratings were generally consistent with dimensional ratings for speech, with accuracy for emotion recognition well above chance. As stimuli approached dimensional extremes of activation and pleasantness, listeners were more confident in their category selection, indicative of a hybrid approach to emotion classification. Female talkers were rated as more activated than male talkers, and female listeners gave higher ratings of activation compared to male listeners, confirming gender differences in emotion perception. Conclusion A hybrid model for auditory emotion classification is supported by the data. Talker and listener factors, such as gender, were found to impact the ratings of emotional speech and must be considered alongside stimulus factors in the design of future studies of emotion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.