ArticlePloS one2025
Effects of stimulus amplitude-scaling approach on emotional responses to non-speech sounds.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the study of auditory emotion perception, it is important to calibrate test sounds so their presentation level during testing is known. It is also often desirable to standardize the amplitude of the sounds so that each sound used in testing is approximately the same level. However, existing literature in the study of auditory emotion perception includes a mixture of techniques for standardizing amplitude across sounds. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two amplitude-scaling approaches on emotional responses to non-speech sounds, specifically standardization based on peak level or root-mean-square (rms) level. Nineteen young adults provided ratings of valence and arousal via an online testing program. Stimuli were non-speech sounds scaled in two ways, based on the stimulus' peak level or rms level. Ratings were analyzed using linear-mixed effects modeling to compare scaling methods; correlations between ratings and level within each scaling method were explored. Analysis revealed that the ratings of peak-scaled sounds were less pleasant and more exciting than were the ratings of rms-scaled sounds, although the effects were small in magnitude (~0.2 points on a 1-9 scale). Within rms-scaled sounds, peak level was not related to ratings of valence or arousal. However, within peak-scaled sounds, rms level was related to ratings of valence and arousal. Combined, these data suggest that amplitude standardization has a small effect on ratings overall, but investigators might be motivated to choose one approach over the other, depending on the research question. Rms-scaling reduces overall level as a cue for emotional responses, while peak-scaling maintains some natural variability in responses related to level. Finally, results are specific to this stimulus set. The effects of amplitude-scaling would be expected to be negligible for a stimulus set where the sounds have homogenous temporal dynamics.
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.