Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42780624›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Understanding emotional responses to music using machine learning: evidence from a public dataset.

He Sun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

He SunSchool of Music, Suzhou University of Science and Technology, Suzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Around several hundred million people globally suffer from severe or negative mental health illnesses (MH). However, individuals report highly variable perceptions of music's impact on their mental health. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate machine learning-based model to predict the effects of music on self-reported mental health (MH). The benchmark dataset is used to analyse the evaluated machine-learning models which has 1,626 individuals across 34 variables. Further this dataset is split into training and testing set, respectively, using state of the art techniques. Of all the machine learning algorithms examined, the Subspace KNN classifier performed the best with a classification accuracy rate of 90.2 percent. Nevertheless, the main importance of the study lies in its methodology, and not in the algorithms themselves, showing how sensitivity analysis shows that the predictors and the design of the study have much more impact on prediction performance than the algorithms used. While there have been studies that have introduced novel architectures for machine learning, this study aims to systematically compare existing supervised learning methods to a relatively under-explored prediction task in which heterogeneous self-reported perceptions of music's effects on mental health are predicted. The key methodological advance is not just comparison of classifiers, but the sensitivity analysis that shows that the choice of the classification algorithm has far less effect on the predictive performance than does the choice of the predictors and the study design. It is necessary to note that the high level of classification accuracy does not mean that listening to music is the only factor predicting the efficacy of therapy. The fact is that a large portion of the prediction ability results from the initial state of the individual's mental health, which is directly related to the outcome variable and thus makes up the predictor-outcome circularity. However, sensitivity analysis showed that the performance of the classifier was significantly affected by the presence of baseline mental health factors such as anxiety, depression, insomnia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. However, it is important to note that this accuracy is substantially inflated by the inclusion of mental health severity predictors (anxiety, depression, OCD) that conceptually overlap with the outcome variable. A sensitivity analysis excluding these variables yielded a more modest accuracy of 73.2%, indicating that the model's predictive power derives primarily from this circular relationship rather than from music-specific features. In order to determine the contribution of the features related specifically to music, a further sensitivity test was conducted by excluding mental health-related variables. With this, the accuracy of classification was reduced to 73.2%. This suggests that the selection of predictors is more significant to the success of the model than the selection of the algorithm. Thus, results should be taken to reflect prediction of response to music. Moreover, about one-third of participants who reported balanced distributions for each group on all outcome measures indicated that they experienced negative effects of music in terms of their MH, which puts into question whether it is fair to assume that all people with MH disorders derive benefits from exposure to music. Finally, results indicate that exposure to music can help differentiate groups based on the genre of music they listened to before outcome assessments. However, the primary contribution of this study lies more in its empirical nature than in its algorithmic aspect. Unlike previous studies that have introduced novel machine learning techniques for modeling behavioral health, this research assesses existing machine learning methods to predict self-reported perceptions about the effect of music on mental wellbeing. This assessment reveals that predictor selection impacts machine learning models significantly more than the choice of machine learning algorithm.

Indexed as

digital healthemotional responsemachine learningmental healthmusic perceptionmusic psychologypredictive modeling

Identifiers

PMID42780624
PMCPMC13597663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.