Defining “emotion” is a notorious problem. Without consensual conceptualization and operationalization of exactly what phenomenon is to be studied, progress in theory and research is difficult to achieve and fruitless debates are likely to proliferate. A particularly unfortunate example is William James’s asking the question “What is an emotion?” when he really meant “feeling”, a misnomer that started a debate which is still ongoing, more than a century later. This contribution attempts to sensitize researchers in the social and behavioral sciences to the importance of definitional issues and their consequences for distinguishing related but fundamentally different affective processes, states, and traits. Links between scientific and folk concepts of emotion are explored and ways to measure emotion and its components are discussed.

We present here new evidence of cross-cultural agreement in the judgment of facial expression, Subjects in 10 cultures performed a more complex judgment task than has been used in previous cross-cultural studies. Instead of limiting the subjects to selecting only one emotion term for each expression, this task allowed them to indicate that multiple emotions were evident and the intensity of each emotion. Agreement was very high across cultures about which emotion was the most intense. The 10 cultures also agreed about the second most intense emotion signaled by an expression and about the relative intensity among expressions of the same emotion. However, cultural differences were found in judgments of the absolute level of emotional intensity.

Professional actors' portrayals of 14 emotions varying in intensity and valence were presented to judges. The results on decoding replicate earlier findings on the ability of judges to infer vocally expressed emotions with much-better-than-chance accuracy, including consistently found differences in the recognizability of different emotions. A total of 224 portrayals were subjected to digital acoustic analysis to obtain profiles of vocal parameters for different emotions. The data suggest that vocal parameters not only index the degree of intensity typical for different emotions but also differentiate valence or quality aspects. The data are also used to test theoretical predictions on vocal patterning based on the component process model of emotion (K.R. Scherer, 1986). Although most hypotheses are supported, some need to be revised on the basis of the empirical evidence. Discriminant analysis and jackknifing show remarkably high hit rates and patterns of confusion that closely mirror those found for listener-judges.

No abstract

No abstract

One reason for the universal appeal of music lies in the emotional rewards that music offers to its listeners. But what makes these rewards so special? The authors addressed this question by progressively characterizing music-induced emotions in 4 interrelated studies. Studies 1 and 2 (n ϭ 354) were conducted to compile a list of music-relevant emotion terms and to study the frequency of both felt and perceived emotions across 5 groups of listeners with distinct music preferences. Emotional responses varied greatly according to musical genre and type of response (felt vs. perceived). Study 3 (n ϭ 801)-a field study carried out during a music festival-examined the structure of music-induced emotions via confirmatory factor analysis of emotion ratings, resulting in a 9-factorial model of music-induced emotions. Study 4 (n ϭ 238) replicated this model and found that it accounted for music-elicited emotions better than the basic emotion and dimensional emotion models. A domain-specific device to measure musically induced emotions is introduced-the Geneva Emotional Music Scale.

The current state of research on emotion effects on voice and speech is reviewed and issues for future research efforts are discussed. In particular, it is suggested to use the Brunswikian lens model as a base for research on the vocal communication of emotion. This approach allows one to model the complete process, including both encoding (expression), transmission, and decoding (impression) of vocal emotion communication. Special emphasis is placed on the conceptualization and operationalization of the major elements of the model (i.e., the speakerÕs emotional state, the listenerÕs attribution, and the mediating acoustic cues). In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of research paradigms for the induction or observation of emotional expression in voice and speech and the experimental manipulation of vocal cues are discussed, using pertinent examples drawn from past and present research.

Work on voice sciences over recent decades has led to a proliferation of acoustic parameters that are used quite selectively and are not always extracted in a similar fashion. With many independent teams working in different research areas, shared standards become an essential safeguard to ensure compliance with state-of-the-art methods allowing appropriate comparison of results across studies and potential integration and combination of extraction and recognition systems. In this paper we propose a basic standard acoustic parameter set for various areas of automatic voice analysis, such as paralinguistic or clinical speech analysis. In contrast to a large brute-force parameter set, we present a minimalistic set of voice parameters here. These were selected based on a) their potential to index affective physiological changes in voice production, b) their proven value in former studies as well as their automatic extractability, and c) their theoretical significance. The set is intended to provide a common baseline for evaluation of future research and eliminate differences caused by varying parameter sets or even different implementations of the same parameters. Our implementation is publicly available with the openSMILE toolkit. Comparative evaluations of the proposed feature set and large baseline feature sets of INTERSPEECH challenges show a high performance of the proposed set in relation to its size.