musical emotions predicted by feelings of entrainment. music

MUSICAL EMO TION S PREDICTED BY FE EL I N GS OF EN TRAINMENT

CAR OLINA LABBE & DIDIE R GRANDJE AN

University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

IN OUR STUDY, TWO GROUPS OF PARTICIPANTS

(n ¼ 61 and n ¼ 58) listened to nine pieces for soloviolin and rated how they felt along an affect dimensionand along the nine Geneva Emotional Music Scaledimensions. After each piece, they completed a 12-itemquestionnaire corresponding to subjective entrainmentreports. A factorial analysis of this Musical EntrainmentQuestionnaire revealed a two-factor solution, with Vis-ceral Entrainment (VE) corresponding to sensations ofinternal bodily entrainment and Motor Entrainment(ME) reflecting participants’ inclination to move to thebeat. These findings represent, to the best of our knowl-edge, the first empirical evidence for the existence oftwo components underlying entrainment capable ofpredicting specific emotional responses to music.Indeed, although both factors predicted Affect, Joyfulactivation, Transcendence, Wonder, Power, and Tender-ness dimensions, only VE predicted Nostalgia and Sad-ness. Moreover, Peacefulness was mostly predicted byME, whereas Tension was mostly predicted by VE.

Received: July 4, 2013, accepted March 14, 2014.

Key words: music, emotion, rhythm, entrainment,questionnaire

PART OF THE ENJOYMENT THAT PEOPLE GET

out of listening to music is without a doubt thearray of emotions that are both evoked and

induced by a variety of musical styles. Yet the questionof how it is that music can induce emotions in listenersis seldom tackled. Part of the reason could be that mucheffort has been spent debating whether music caninduce emotions (emotivist view), or whether it merelyrepresents them (cognitivist view) (Krumhansl, 1997).Another reason is that, until recently, relatively fewmeasures were available to researchers who were inter-ested in studying the effects of music in listeners, andeven fewer conceptual frameworks were available forresearchers to draw upon that were specific to musicas a stimulus (Zentner & Eerola, 2010a). In the sectionsthat follow, we summarize some of the characteristics of

certain musical experiences, how these experiencesmight be induced, and how they can be measured, withspecial emphasis on entrainment and its role in emotionelicitation.

Because music has no immediate relevance to listen-ers’ goals and needs in terms of survival, it is especiallydifficult to explain people’s affective reactions to it. Inthis sense, Scherer (2004) drew a useful distinctionbetween utilitarian emotions, which have adaptive func-tions and can be explained by appraisal, and aestheticemotions, which are elicited by the ‘‘intrinsic qualities’’of a piece of art or music. This leads us to ask whatqualities should then be taken into account in theemotion-elicitation process. Scherer and Zentner(2001) propose at least four features related to: thestructure (i.e., the score), the performance, the listener,and the listening context. In this study we were partic-ularly interested in the effects of performance features asmight be modulated by changing the expressive style ofthe performance while leaving all else intact. Indeed,according to Scherer and Zentner (2001) performancefeatures include performer identity, ability, and cogni-tive, emotional, and mood states. The latter featurerefers to the way the musician felt in terms of concen-tration, motivation, and his/her affective state in gen-eral, and finally his/her interpretation of a piece. Wefocused on this interpretative aspect by asking world-renowned violinist Renaud Capuçon to perform tenpieces in three different ways that differed only in termsof their emotional expressive style. We know listeners tobe sensitive to performers’ use of expression of emo-tional content (Palmer, 1997) and thus we hoped toinduce different subjective feelings with the modulationof expressive styles. A similar approach was used byChapin, Jantzen, Kelso, Steinberg, and Large (2010) whofound stronger responses to an ‘expressive’ performanceof Chopin’s Etude in E major recorded on a MIDI pianoto a digitally modified (‘mechanical’) rendition of thesame piece where tempo and dynamic changes werecompletely removed.

But this still does not answer the question of howaesthetic emotions are induced. Scherer and Zentner(2001) propose that more than one process is involvedand suggest a number of possible mechanisms, or‘‘routes’’: central routes such as appraisal, memory, andempathy, which involve the central nervous system, and

Music Perception, VOLUME 32, ISSUE 2, PP. 170–185, ISSN 0730-7829, ELEC TRONIC ISSN 1533-8312. © 2014 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSIT Y OF CALIFORNIA ALL

RIGHTS RESERVED. PLEASE DIRECT ALL REQUESTS FOR PERMISSION TO PHOTOCOPY OR REPRODUC E ARTICLE CONTENT THROUGH THE UNIVERSIT Y OF CALIFORNIA PRESS’S

RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS WEBSITE, HT TP://WWW.UCPRESSJOURNALS.COM/REPRINTINFO.ASP. DOI: 10.1525/MP.2014.32.2.170

170 Carolina Labbe & Didier Grandjean

peripheral routes such as proprioceptive feedback andemotion expression facilitation effects, which involvethe peripheral nervous system, including feedback tothe central nervous system. More recently, Juslin andcollaborators (Juslin, 2013; Juslin, Liljestrom, Vastfjall,& Lundqvist, 2010) have also proposed a theoreticalframework called the BRECVEMA (brain stem reflexes,rhythmic entrainment, evaluative conditioning, emo-tional contagion, visual imagery, episodic memory,musical expectancy, and aesthetic judgment). LikeScherer and Zentner, these authors acknowledge thatmore than one mechanism (in the widest sense of theword) is likely at work. In this article, we especially focuson rhythmic entrainment and the feelings induced bymusic listening using the Geneva Emotional Music Scale(GEMS). This instrument was expressly developed byZentner, Grandjean, and Scherer (2008) to measuremusic-induced emotions and includes dimensions thatare specific to music.

Entrainment is defined as the process by which twoindependent systems capable of emitting periodic out-puts synchronize their phases or periods as they interactwith each other (Clayton, Sager, & Will, 2005). In thespecific case of rhythmic entrainment, it is the body, andthe various biological systems within it (e.g., respiration,motor actions), that entrain with the regular patternsperceived in the music (Juslin et al., 2010). Dynamictheories of entrainment (Jones & Boltz, 1989) go further,proposing that cognitive processes such as attention(Bolger, Trost, & Schon, 2013), not just biologicalrhythms such as respiration or movement, can behaveas self-sustaining entrainable oscillators and that it isthrough ‘‘attentional synchrony’’ that rhythm is per-ceived in the first place (McAuley, 2010). Naturally,trained musicians are better able to perceive more com-plex meters, but for most listeners no training is neededto perceive the simple pulse of a piece, which is at a lowerhierarchical level. It has in fact been suggested that theautomatic motor synchronization to music is both proofof this and a human universal (Geiser, Sandmann,Jancke, & Meyer, 2010; Geiser, Ziegler, Jancke, & Meyer,2009; Repp, 2005). Moreover, work on infants seems toindicate that humans have a very early predisposition toentrain to strong and salient beats in music (Phillips-Silver & Trainor, 2005; Zentner & Eerola, 2010b). Fur-ther, at least one study has probed the relationshipbetween the enjoyment of a piece and perceived groove,a concept closely related to entrainment that combinesthe urge to move with positive affect and sensorimotorcoupling (Janata, Tomic, & Haberman, 2012). What liesat the heart of most, if not all, definitions of entrainmentand entrainment-related behaviors, however, are the

ideas of predictability, expectations, and motion (Clay-ton et al., 2005). So what does this have to do withemotion?

Experts generally agree that emotion is a processinvolving several components such as ‘‘cognition, moti-vation, physiological reactions, motor expressions, andfeeling’’ (Grandjean, Sander, & Scherer, 2008). Motiva-tion, which has also been called action tendency oraction preparation (Frijda, Kuipers, & Terschure, 1989;Sander, Grandjean, & Scherer, 2005), concerns our pre-disposition or readiness to act (e.g., approaching in thecase of joy or avoiding in the case of disgust) or torefrain from acting (e.g., freezing in the case of fear)while experiencing certain emotions in a relatively pre-dictable manner. Approach is generally associated withreward and often, but not exclusively, with positiveemotions (Sander & Scherer, 2009). In all cases, it seemsthat action tendencies call for movements with a specificintensity and direction that are strongly evoked or pre-pared during emotional experiences but not necessarilyperformed, thus we feel like ‘‘jumping for joy’’ or‘‘exploding with anger’’ without necessarily moving.

From a music cognition perspective, Bharucha, Cur-tis, and Paroo (2006) have proposed that consciousmusical experiences can be broadly divided into struc-ture recognition, affective experiences, and motionexperiences, be they conceptually experienced inabstract form or actually performed. They further iden-tify finer aspects of these experiences of motion, includ-ing, for example, a sense of self-motion that could beattributed to projections from the saccule, which isinvolved in head motion monitoring, in the vestibularsystem of the inner ear to spinal motoneurons involvedin actual movements. These authors have also men-tioned the intuitive idea that music can convey a senseof movement simply because it transmits the same typeof information about physical movement that naturalobjects do, for example, through changes in intensityand duration. This facet could be facilitated or explainedby mimicry-related processes where one implicitly, orexplicitly, compares sounds with motions that onebelieves would have to be performed to produce them.The fact that in functional magnetic resonance imagingstudies brain activation patterns seem to depend moreon reproduced rhythms of what participants thoughtthey had heard, rather than on the actual stimuli theydid hear, lends support to this idea and suggests thatthese activations reflect internal representations ofrhythm (Sakai et al., 1999).

Concerning affective experiences, Bharucha et al.(2006) have suggested that one of the ways in whichmusic might induce emotions in the listener is through

Feelings of Entrainment and Musical Emotions 171

proprioceptive feedback when mimicking (throughsinging or humming) some of the qualities of the musicthat most resemble natural vocal expressions. Indeed, inthe 18th century, this role of music as conveyor of emo-tion in the sung voice through a kind of imitation ofnature was already being advocated by Jean-JacquesRousseau in his notorious support for melody over har-mony in the ‘‘Querelle des Bouffons’’ (Rousseau, 2002).This would be in line with Scherer and Zentner’s pro-posal of a peripheral route of emotion production that is‘‘based on the idea that the emotion system consists ofintegrated components and that the system as a wholecan be activated by manipulating the patterning of oneof its components’’ (Scherer & Zentner, 2001, p. 371).Thus, if music can indeed stimulate a sense of motionand trigger the action tendency component, a prototyp-ical pattern, then associated feelings could well beevoked. This is akin to what is proposed by the facialfeedback hypothesis that studies how motor, and morespecifically facial, expressions influence the affectiveexperience with convincing results (Strack, Martin, &Stepper, 1988).

Although a number of studies have measured physi-ological entrainment in both autonomic nervous systemand central nervous system activity (Clayton et al., 2005;Fujioka, Trainor, Large, & Ross, 2009; Fujioka, Zendel,& Ross, 2010; Nozaradan, Peretz, Missal, & Mouraux,2011; Will & Berg, 2007), to the best of our knowledge,no questionnaire yet exists concerning self-reportedsubjective entrainment to music, nor has any studyattempted to relate self-reported entrainment as wedefine it to music induced emotions. Therefore, ourmain purpose in developing such a questionnaire, theMusical Entrainment Questionnaire (MEQ), was toinvestigate the potentially important facets of entrain-ment. The goals of the present study were twofold: (a) totest the factorial structure of the questionnaire devel-oped in order to study the potential facets of subjectiveentrainment; and (b) to test the links between self-reported entrainment judgments with subjective feel-ings of emotion by using the GEMS in a music listeningparadigm in which several pieces were played with dif-ferent levels of emotional expression. The GEMS scaleconsists of nine emotional dimensions that are theresult of a confirmatory factor analysis of emotion rat-ings collected during live performances: Wonder, Tran-scendence, Tenderness, Nostalgia, Peacefulness, Power,Joyful activation, Tension, and Sadness. This scale hasbeen used in a music-induced emotion study duringopera listening (Miu & Baltes , 2012), in functional mag-netic resonance imaging studies (Trost, Ethofer, Zentner,& Vuilleumier, 2012), and in film music listening

paradigms (Vuoskoski & Eerola, 2011). We expected sub-jective entrainment, as measured by the MEQ, to have animportant role in the elicitation of musical emotions, asmeasured by the GEMS, which we believe it did, and forthis relation to be modulated by the emotional expres-sivity of the recordings used as stimuli which was alsoachieved.

Method

PARTICIPANTS

Given the underrepresentation of male students at Uni-versity of Geneva, recruitment of a sufficient and equalnumber of men and women would have been imprac-tical. Therefore, only women were recruited in an effortto control for the gender variable. A total of 119 femaleparticipants were included in two studies. Sixty-oneparticipants (M ¼ 23.6 years, SD ¼ 4.8 years) took partin the first study and 58 different participants (M¼ 23.4years, SD ¼ 5.6 years) in the second study. Only thosewho liked classical music were recruited through adsposted at the university since it was assumed that parti-cipants who disliked it would be unlikely to engage withthe stimuli. Overall, 35.3% of participants listened toclassical music at least once a week, 26.1% at least oncea month, 17.7% at least once a day, while only 12.6%listening to classical music less than once a month, and8.4% less than three times a year. Including singing,51.3% of all participants practiced an instrument andhad been doing so for an average of 5.34 years (� ¼6.86). All participants had to have a very good level ofFrench in order to participate and in fact for 60.5% ofthem it was their mother tongue. Finally, 93.3% of themwere right-handed. They were paid 15 Swiss francsupon successfully completing the task.

MATERIALS

Musical stimuli. Ten pieces for solo violin were recordedat the Brain and Behavior Laboratory of the Universityof Geneva to make up the stimuli for the study (seeTable 1 for a detailed listing of the stimuli). The pieceswere performed by a professional violinist in three dif-ferent expressive styles: deadpan, emphatic, and natural.The first, deadpan, consisted of a very sober renditionof the piece, performed with hardly any expression atall. The instruction was ‘‘to play as though sight-readingthe piece for the first time.’’ The emphatic version,on the other hand, was very expressive and here theinstruction was ‘‘to exaggerate and overemphasizethe expressivity of the piece.’’ The natural version wasthe way the violinist usually performed these particu-lar pieces in concert.


Measures. Participants continuously rated how stronglythey felt a specific feeling (i.e., one dimension of theGEMS) or a general feeling without a specific label(i.e., affect), while listening to the pieces by usinga dynamic computerized rating interface developed atthe Swiss Center for Affective Sciences (Torres-Eliard,Labbe, & Grandjean, 2011). As the music unfolded,participants could move the mouse cursor up to indicatethat the intensity of their feeling had increased (maxi-mum 300) and down to indicate that it had decreased(minimum 0); if the cursor was left at the bottom of thewindow, it indicated that they felt nothing at all for thatparticular piece. As the sampling rate for these measure-ments was 4 Hz (every 250 ms), participants’ ratings lefta trace on the screen that they could see.

After each piece, on visual analogic scales from 0 to100, participants in the first study were asked to ratehow they felt along the nine GEMS dimensions (Zentneret al., 2008) and participants in the second study howmoved or affected they felt. Participants had access to the

definitions of each GEMS dimension throughout theentire experiment.

Following these ratings, participants rated howentrained they felt along the 12 items of the MusicalEntrainment Questionnaire (MEQ) on scales from0 to 100. The MEQ (see Table 2), is composed of 12items consisting of questions that illustrate a listener’sinclination to move (items 2, 5, 6, and 10), the extent towhich a listener is excited (items 1, 3, 4, and 7), and theextent to which a listener can feel his or her own body’sautonomic activity change (items 6, 9, 11, and 12).These responses are in line with Bharucha et al.’s(2006) view of music as inducing a sense of motion, theBRECVEMA’s prediction that entrainment mostlyinduces ‘‘general arousal’’ (Juslin, 2013; Juslin et al.,2010), and Scherer and Zentner’s (2001) proposal ofa peripheral route for the induction of emotion, respec-tively. Because Juslin et al.’s (2010) rhythmic entrain-ment mechanism leans heavily on a somatic theory ofemotion perspective, we included on the questionnaire

TABLE 1. Musical Pieces Used in the Study With Their Targeted Emotions and Duration.

Composer Piece Target Dpn. Emp. Nat.

Bach Partita no. 2 in D minor, BWV 1004, I. Allemanda Nostalgia 200800 200100 202200

Beethoven Violin concerto in D major, Op. 61, II. Larghetto Peacefulness 304600 305500 400400

*Brahms Violin sonata no. 1 in G major, Op. 78, I. Vivace ma non troppo Peacefulness – – 100600

Franck Sonata for piano & violin in A major, FWV 8, II. Allegro Sadness 201100 201500 202200

Gluck ‘‘Melody’’ from Orpheus & Eurydice Tenderness 303400 303700 303500

Massenet ‘‘Meditation’’ from Thaıs Transcendence 205100 204800 205800

Mendelssohn Violin concerto no. 2 in E minor, Op. 64, I. Allegro molto appassionato Tension 100400 5900 10

Mozart Violin concerto no. 3 in G major, K.216, I. Allegro Joyful Activation 104700 104100 104200

Schumann Violin concerto in D minor, Op. Posth., I. In Kraftigem, Nicht ZuSchnellem Tempo

Power 201800 201300 202100

Sibelius Violin concerto in D minor, Op. 47, I. Allegro moderato Wonder 201700 201200 201600

Note. * ¼ Training piece; Dpn. ¼ Deadpan; Emp. ¼ Emphatic; Nat ¼ Natural

TABLE 2. Musical Entrainment Questionnaire Items.

ItemFrench original

(a quel point vous etes-vous/avez-vous . . . )English translation

(to what extent did you . . . )

Entrain1 . . . senti physiquement stimule . . . feel physically stimulatedEntrain2 . . . eu envie de danser . . . feel like dancingEntrain3 . . . senti plein d’entrain . . . feel entrained/drivenEntrain4 . . . senti physiquement energise . . . feel energizedEntrain5 . . . eu envie de bouger . . . feel like movingEntrain6 . . . senti anime . . . feel animatedEntrain7 . . . senti physiquement excite . . . feel physically excitedEntrain8 . . . senti le rythme dans votre corps . . . feel the rhythm in your bodyEntrain9 . . . senti corporellement agite . . . feel bodily agitatedEntrain10 . . . eu envie de battre le temps, le tempo ou le rythme . . . feel like beating time, tempo, or rhythmEntrain11 . . . ressenti vos propres rythmes corporels changer . . . feel your own bodily rhythms changeEntrain12 . . . senti votre corps resonner avec la musique . . . feel your own body resonate with the music


sentences or propositions that reflected not only listen-ers’ propensity to move and generally synchronize withthe music, but also items concerning subjective feelingsof changes in body rhythms.

Questionnaires. As a study by Miu and Baltes (2012)showed that there was a strong linkage between a listen-er’s cognitive empathy with music-induced emotionsand physiological activity, at the end of the experiment,we used the French version of Baron-Cohen’s 60-itemEmpathy Quotient (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright,2004; Lawrence, Shaw, Baker, Baron-Cohen, & David,2004; Saxe & Baron-Cohen, 2006) to investigate therelationships between empathy and the tendency to beentrained by music. Empathy scores were computedfrom the sum of the 40 valid items of the EmpathyQuotient (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). Scoresranged from 23 to 65, with an average score of 43.3 (�¼7.7). In addition, we used a questionnaire with 41 itemsto assess participants’ expertise and music listening pre-ferences. Total scores for the musical preferences ques-tionnaire consisted of the sum of all items divided by themaximum possible score. Scores ranged from 0.54 to0.88, with an average score of 0.69 (� ¼ 0.07).

PROCEDURE

Since using the 27 recordings (9 pieces � 3 expressivestyles) would have made the session too long, each par-ticipant listened to only 10 recordings each (3 pieces� 3expressive styles, 1 control, ‘‘Schuman Natural’’ seeTable 3). We resorted to a between-subjects design inwhich a participant was assigned to one of three groups(Group 1, 2, or 3 in the first study and Group 4, 5, or 6 inthe second study). In each group, the same 10 recordingswere presented, but in such a way that the same piece wasnever heard twice in a row and no expressive style wasused twice in a row (see Table 3 for details).

Participants were seated approximately 60 cm in frontof a 22-inch (55.88 cm) widescreen Dell P2210 monitor(1680 � 1050 resolution) and began by reading on-screen instructions. After the difference between recog-nized and felt emotions during music listening wasexplained to the participants they were told the exper-iment would concern only the latter.

After answering demographic questions, the partici-pants had the opportunity to train as many times asthey liked on an example piece until they felt comfort-able with the interface. The volume was adjusted toa comfortable level through Sennheiser HD 280 Proheadphones.

In the first experiment, participants continuouslyrated how moved or affected they felt by the piece. Afterit had ended, they were asked to rate how they felt along

the nine GEMS dimensions and along the 12 entrain-ment items on continuous scales. For each piece, theywere also asked if they recalled having heard it before(either during the session or at any other time).

In the second experiment, participants continuouslyrated how strongly they felt along a particular GEMSdimension that we preselected for each piece. After lis-tening, they were simply asked to rate how moved oraffected they had felt overall along a single scale, as wellas along the 12 entrainment items on continuous scales,and whether they recalled hearing the piece.

After they rated all 10 pieces, both versions of thestudy ended with Baron-Cohen’s Empathy Quotient(Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004) and the musicalpreferences questionnaire. Table 4 provides an overviewof the protocol used in both experiments.

Results

FACTORIAL ANALYSES

Responses to the 12 items of the MEQ from the twoexperiments were examined both separately and jointlyin a factorial analysis to test the stability of the factorialstructure. We used a principal components extractionmethod and subjected the loadings to a varimax normal-ized rotation to obtain the most independent possiblefactors. In all three cases, a two-factor solution was cho-sen on the basis of the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalue > 1)and observation of the resulting scree plots. Consistentwith the three solutions, the first factor is characterizedby items related to body or visceral rhythmic feelings(e.g., ‘‘felt own body rhythms change’’; the VisceralEntrainment [VE] factor), whereas the second factor ismainly characterized by rhythmic motor movements(e.g., ‘‘felt like dancing’’; the Motor Entrainment [ME]factor; see Table 5 and Figure 1).

GENERALIZED LINEAR MIXED MODELS

Our first aim was to test the significance of the effectsof our experimental manipulations with the categoricalfactors Musical Pieces (nine levels: MP), Musical Styles(three levels: MS), and the GEMS (nine levels), as wellas their interactions (see Figure 2). For this purposeand given the distribution of our data, we used a gen-eralized linear mixed model with a gamma distribution.The subject effect was controlled for. This analysisrevealed a significant main effect for MP (Wald statistic[WS] ¼ 21.24, p < .01), MS (WS ¼ 6.81, p < .05), andGEMS (WS ¼ 78.20, p < .0001). The interaction anal-ysis revealed significant effects for MP � GEMS (WS ¼467.37, p < .0001); all other interactions were


TABLE 3. Order of Presentation of the Pieces.

Moz. Bach Sib. Bach Moz. *Sch. Bach Sib. Moz. Sib.Nat. Dpn. Emp. Nat. Dpn. Nat. Emp. Dpn. Emp. Nat.

Groups 1 & 4Order 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Order 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1Order 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2Order 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3Order 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4Order 6 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5Order 7 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6Order 8 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Order 9 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Order 10 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Fra. Men. Bee. Men. Fra. *Sch. Men. Bee. Fra. Bee.Nat. Dpn. Emp. Nat. Dpn. Nat. Emp. Dpn. Emp. Nat.


Mas. Glu. Sch. Glu. Mas. Men. Glu. Sch. Mas. *Sch.Nat. Dpn. Emp. Nat. Dpn. Nat. Emp. Dpn. Emp. Nat.


Note. Bee. ¼ Beethoven; Fran. ¼ Franck; Glu. ¼ Gluck; Mas. ¼ Massenet; Men. ¼ Mendelssohn; Moz. ¼ Mozart; Sib. ¼ Sibelius; Sch. ¼ Schumann. Groups 1 (n ¼ 21),2 (n ¼ 21), and 3 (n ¼ 21) performed the first experiment, while Groups 4 (n ¼ 20), 5 (n ¼ 19), and 6 (n ¼ 19) performed the second experiment. * ¼ control piece.

TABLE 4. Experimental Protocol.

Measures Experiment 1 Experiment 2

1. Dynamic judgmentDuring listening

Affect 1 preselected GEMS dimension

2. Static ratingPost-listening

9 GEMS dimensions Affect

3. Entrainment questionnairePost-listening

12 entrainment items 12 entrainment items

4. Additional questionnairesEnd of the session

Musical preferences questionnaire and Empathy Quotient

Note. GEMS ¼ Geneva Emotional Music Scale.


nonsignificant (MP � MS: WS ¼ 17.65, ns; MS �GEMS: WS ¼ 17.10, ns).

To test the specific contribution of the two entrain-ment factors to the reported GEMS and affect ratings,we also used a generalized linear mixed model witha Poisson-gamma distribution (Tweedie in Statistica)to model a distribution that is continuous for valuesgreater than 0 but with a mass at 0. The factors includedin this analysis were the VE and ME factors as contin-uous predictors, and Musical Styles (three levels: dead-pan, natural, and emphatic) and Musical Pieces (ninelevels) as categorical factors; the interactions of interest

were also included in this model. This analysis was per-formed for each GEMS dimension separately. Bothentrainment factors were significantly related to Joyfulactivation, Transcendence, Wonder, Power, and Tender-ness. The analysis revealed that Nostalgia and Sadnessare both significantly related to the VE but not to theME factor. Tension is also significantly related to the VE,but only marginally to the ME factor. On the otherhand, Peacefulness is significantly related to the ME,but only marginally to the VE factor (see Table 6 fordetails).

Interestingly, the factor Musical Styles is significantfor Power and Tension. Furthermore, for Power, theMusical Styles and the ME factors interact significantly.The two continuous predictors, ME and VE, interactsignificantly for affect, Transcendence, Wonder, Ten-sion, and Tenderness, with significantly higher predict-ability of the VE factor for the first three ratings, buthigher predictability of the ME factor for Tenderness(see Figures 3 and 4). The two triple interactions ofinterest (VE with MS and MP; and ME with MS andMP) are both significant for Joyful activation and affect,but whereas the triple interaction with VE is significantfor Wonder and Tension, with ME these are only mar-ginally significant. Finally, the main effects of MusicalPieces are significant for all musical emotions (see Table6 for details).

The same analysis was performed on the affect judg-ments using a normal distribution. All main effects aresignificant. Furthermore, the interactions of the twocontinuous predictors ME and VE are significant withhigher predictability of the VE factor (see Figure 5).

TABLE 5. Factorial Analysis on Entrainment Items for the Two Experiments.

Experiments 1 þ 2 Experiment 1 Experiment 2

Entrainment Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor1 Factor2 Factor1 Factor2

Motor entrainment factors (ME)Entrain2 - felt like dancing .16 .84 .13 .81 .18 .86Entrain5 - felt like moving .29 .84 .28 .85 .29 .83Entrain3 - felt entrained/driven .36 .74 .4 .63 .34 .81Entrain10 - felt like beating time, tempo, or rhythm .37 .63 .33 .67 .39 .6Entrain4 - felt energized .55 .65 .58 .6 .53 .68Visceral entrainment factors (VE)Entrain11 - felt own body rhythms change .85 .16 .84 .18 .86 .17Entrain12 - felt own body resonate with the music .81 .23 .83 .18 .79 .29Entrain8 - felt the rhythm in own body .7 .44 .66 .46 .73 .42Entrain9 - felt bodily agitated .69 .27 .62 .27 .74 .29Entrain6 - felt animated .66 .52 .7 .49 .61 .55Entrain1 - felt physically stimulated .65 .49 .72 .39 .58 .58Entrain7 - felt physically excited .62 .48 .56 .54 .68 .42Proportion of total explained variance .36 .32 .35 .3 .36 .34

Note. Factor loadings >.60 are in boldface. Rotation: varimax normalized; extraction: principal components.

FIGURE 1. Factor analysis on the Musical Entrainment Questionnaire

items (Experiments 1 þ 2). ME ¼ Motor Entrainment; VE ¼ Visceral

Entrainment.


Moreover, the interactions between ME�MS, as well asthe two triple interactions (VE � MS �MP and ME �MS � MP) are also significant (see Table 6 for details).

QUESTIONNAIRES

To test the links between the VE and the ME with inter-individual differences on empathy and musical prefer-ences, we used a generalized linear mixed model witha gamma distribution, with MP and MS as categoricalfactors and Empathy (E) and Musical Preferences (MPr)as continuous predictors. The relevant interactions werealso added to this model.

For the VE, this analysis revealed significant maineffects for MP (WS ¼ 79.41, p < .0001), MPr (WS ¼637.38, p < .0001), and E (WS ¼ 6.68, p < .01), but nosignificant effect for MS (WS < 1). The interactions ofinterest revealed significant effects for MS�MP (WS¼67.95, p < .0001), MS �MPr (8.92, p < .05), MP �MPr(93.14, p < .0001), and interestingly, MS � E (WS ¼11.01, p < .01).

For ME, the analysis showed significant main effectsfor MP (WS ¼ 82.5, p < .0001), MPr (WS ¼ 169.29, p <.0001), and E (WS ¼ 117.97, p < .0001), again with nosignificant effect for MS (WS ¼ 1.84, ns). The same

FIGURE 2. Means of emotional judgments. Left panel (A): Means of Geneva Emotional Music Scale ratings by emotional dimension. Right panel (B):

Means of emotional judgment ratings by musical styles. Error bars represent standard deviation.

TABLE 6. Generalized Linear Mixed Model of the Affect and GEMS Ratings.

VE(df ¼ 1)

ME(df ¼ 1)

MS(df ¼ 2)

MP(df ¼ 8) VE�ME

VE�MS(df ¼ 2)

ME�MS(df ¼ 2)

VE�MS�MP(df ¼ 16)

ME�MS�MP(df ¼ 16)

Joy 35.67*** 41.05*** 1.19 60.05*** < 1 1.79 < 1 29.55* 35.61**Tra 112.85*** 23.53*** 1.60 25.93*** 6.44* 1.53 2.73 15.05 12.83Won 127.44*** 43.45*** 5.17� 32.01** 7.79** 3.85 2.60 27.66* 24.66�

Pow 80.61*** 12.45** 6.18* 61.02*** < 1 1.63 6.18* 12.84 8.58Tnd 20.12*** 55.53*** 3.19 70.12*** 5.74* 1.26 < 1 14.60 13.95Pea 2.73� 10.85** 4.57 56.42*** < 1 < 1 1.41 16.00 6.61Nos 15.70*** 1.64 1.61 51.93*** < 1 < 1 < 1 12.39 12.93Tns 9.55** 3.63� 8.97* 98.38*** 11.95** 5.82 < 1 28.43* 25.21�

Sad 5.62* < 1 < 1 36.72*** < 1 < 1 1.45 25.34� 12.91Aff 1268.80*** 370.90*** 36.60*** 134.00*** 109.90*** 1.50 13.30** 70.60*** 106.50***

Note. Wald’s statistics and degrees of freedom of the generalized linear mixed model using a Poisson-gamma distribution with the continuous predictors Visceral Entrainment(VE) and Motor Entrainment (ME), the categorical factors Musical Styles (MS) and Musical Pieces (MP), and the interactions of interest. GEMS ¼ Geneva Emotional MusicScale; Joy ¼ Joyful activation; Tra ¼ Transcendence; Won ¼Wonder; Pow ¼ Power; Tnd ¼ Tenderness; Pea ¼ Peacefulness; Nos ¼ Nostalgia; Tns ¼ Tension; Sad ¼ Sadness;Aff ¼ Affect.***p < .001 **p < .01 *p < .05� p ¼ .05 to .1


relevant interactions were significant for MS � MP(WS ¼ 122.23, p < .0001), MP � MPr (WS ¼ 109.05,p < .0001), and MS � E (WS ¼ 7.54, p < .02); however,they were marginal for MS�MPr (WS¼ 5.27, p¼ .07).

Discussion

In this study, we sought to (a) investigate how to mea-sure the subjective entrainment phenomenon to musicthrough self-report, (b) determine the underlying struc-ture of subjective entrainment, and (c) relate these sub-jective entrainment components to musical emotions ina classical music listening paradigm using differentexpressive styles.

From our results, we propose that subjective entrain-ment phenomena can indeed be characterized by a two-factor model with one dimension representing feltchanges in one’s own body, VE, and a second dimensionrepresenting one’s inclination to move with the music asa result of music listening, ME. This pattern divergesslightly from our initial expectations because we hadhoped to find a third component in the form of ‘‘excite-ment’’ inspired by the BRECVEMA framework (Juslin,2013; Juslin et al., 2010), which predicted that the mech-anism of rhythmic entrainment would most likelyinduce ‘‘general arousal.’’ In fact, these items (1, 3, 4and 7) were among the least informative ones in termsof explained variance with some of the lowest factorloadings as was seen in the factorial analyses. Further-more, on the basis of these loadings and in order toavoid any confusion between the concepts of subjectiveentrainment and arousal, we propose to remove three ofthese items (1, 4, and 7) from the final version of theMEQ.

Indeed, we believe there is much more to the relationbetween entrainment and emotion than mere activationor arousal since VE and ME are differently related todifferent musical emotions, not just to their level ofintensity, which would not have been the case if entrain-ment were synonymous with arousal or activation.While both VE and ME predicted Joyful activation,Transcendence, Wonder, Power, Tenderness, and affect,only the VE component predicted Nostalgia and Sad-ness. Furthermore, Tension was predicted by VE andonly marginally by ME, whereas Peacefulness was pre-dicted by ME and only marginally by VE. The interac-tions between the VE and ME factors in the prediction

FIGURE 3. Scatterplot of felt Wonder ratings according to Visceral and

Motor Entrainment scores (only with values > 0 on the Wonder scale).

FIGURE 4. Scatterplot of felt Tenderness ratings according to Visceral

and Motor Entrainment scores (only with values > 0 on the Tenderness

scale).

FIGURE 5. Scatterplot of felt Affect ratings according to Visceral and

Motor Entrainment scores.


of musical emotions for Transcendence, Wonder, Ten-derness, Tension, and affect are clearly the first empir-ical evidence for the existence of two componentsunderlying subjective entrainment phenomena. Fur-thermore, the different ways in which the musicianplays in terms of expression also affects the linksbetween the entrainment components and specificmusical emotions, as was demonstrated here by theinteractions between the ME and VE factors and themusical styles. What is striking is how positivelyvalenced, and oftentimes arousing, the emotions bestpredicted by either factor were. Furthermore, the entrain-ment phenomenon in the context of musical emotions isnot unidimensional, but at least bidimensional. The firstcomponent (VE) is the visceral one related to mechan-isms that induce a feeling of body changes at differentlevels of the autonomic and/or peripheral systems, prob-ably including the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis.The second mechanism (ME) is strongly related to thetendency to move in time with the musical tempo andmeter.

Looking at VE more specifically, we already knowfrom the literature (Bernardi et al., 2009; Etzel, Johnsen,Dickerson, Tranel, & Adolphs, 2006; Khalfa, Roy, Rain-ville, Dalla Bella, & Peretz, 2008; Nyklicek, Thayer, &van Doornen, 1997) that music can synchronize cardio-vascular rhythms and perhaps that is what wasreflected in self-reports of visceral entrainment. How-ever, further studies that measure changes in auto-nomic physiological rhythms would have to be madeto evaluate just how accurately participants were atdetecting changes in their own bodies, because it canbe reasonably expected that people differ in this ability.In our own group we have already concluded two suchstudies seeking to measure the level of synchronizationbetween EEG, respiration and heart rate while listeningto rhythmic sequences and musical pieces as well as therelation between such measures and the dimensions ofthe GEMS and the MEQ, especially VE. Furthermore,we know that activity in brain areas coding for somaticand visceral states (Damasio, 1996) can also indicatethe intensity of certain emotional experiences. In par-ticular, from an embodied cognition view of emotion,we think of the role of the insula in representing bodilychanges and states (Craig, 2003), including those ofcardiovascular and respiratory function, as a basis forthe mechanism behind VE in emotion induction(Baumgartner, Esslen, & Jancke, 2006). This mightexplain how, in this study, VE but not ME could pre-dict low valenced and low arousing emotions such asNostalgia and Sadness, which is consistent with whatwe know of Sadness and its relation to slowing heart

and respiration rates (Kreibig, Wilhelm, Roth, & Gross,2007).

As for the second factor, it is interesting to note that,of all the GEMS dimensions, ME should best predictTenderness, Joyful activation, and Wonder becauseresearch has found them to be rated as highly positive,the latter two being highly arousing as well (Trost et al.,2012; Vuoskoski & Eerola, 2011). With positive emo-tions being strongly associated with approach and con-tinued action behaviors, a desire to move would beconsistent with this association and could be interpretedas a sign of engagement. Scherer and Zentner (2001)even proposed that through an empathy route, expres-sive movements in music might lead to a form of con-tagion, in such a way that rhythms might produce‘‘synchronized movements of the body’’; since musicexpressive of positive emotion tends to have a clearerand more salient beat structure, it would be relativelyeasy to synchronize movements with music, facilitatingimitation. This seems especially likely in the case ofPeacefulness which was only marginally predicted byVE but significantly predicted by ME, when one thinksof the effect of relatively slow but very regular musicsuch as lullabies or slow waltzes that can both calm andentrain the listener. It would therefore be pertinent torefine the ME factor by adding and testing items thatreflect a wider variety of movements, such as swaying,rocking, bobbing, swinging, jumping, and so on.

Interestingly, while both dimensions belonging to the‘‘unease’’ first-order factor of the GEMS, Tension andSadness (Zentner et al., 2008) were mostly predicted byVE and significantly so in the case of Tension, they werenevertheless among the least well explained by eitherfactor. This could be revealing of the types of emotionthat rhythmic entrainment can and cannot induce asa mechanism and is consistent with Janata et al.’s(2012) findings on high-groove music being related topositive affect and the urge to move. Indeed, Juslin andVastfjall (2008) had always asserted that no one singlemechanism can be expected to induce all emotions.Perhaps it is the case that rhythmic entrainment ismostly involved with positive emotions, of any level ofarousal, as opposed to general arousal of any valence,which seems to be what the original BRECVEMAframework suggested, even though ‘‘pleasant feelingsof communion’’ had been mentioned as well (Juslin,2013; Juslin et al., 2010). This brings us back to thecomplex matter of multiple mechanisms interacting inthe induction of more than one kind of response duringmusic listening.

Indeed, Scherer and Zentner (2001) have alreadystressed the importance of taking into account the many


variables that might affect listeners’ experience, rangingfrom the structural features of the actual piece; to takinginto account where, when, and how the listening is tak-ing place (contextual features); to the listener features,which we discuss below; and finally, to performancefeatures. It certainly was the case in our results that bothwhat was played and how it was played significantlyaffected the results, as reflected in the effects of musicalpiece and musical style on the GEMS and affect ratings,and the interactions between the entrainment factorswith musical pieces and style. Not only did differentpieces differently affect participants, which wasexpected, as this set of stimuli had been selected for theexpression of specific dimensions in a related study(unpublished data), but natural and emphatic versionsof the same pieces were more likely to elicit a strongerresponse, as could be seen in ratings of affect, Tension,and Power, but also in the interaction effect between MEand MS. The fact that it was sometimes the natural andnot necessarily the emphatic version that elicited thestrongest ratings, as was the case for Power, for example,also suggests that professional musicians know how toplay with listeners’ expectations in order to obtain theirengagement, thereby turning music performance intoa veritable co-creative activity and not merely a passiveexperience on behalf of the listener. Perhaps this wasmost obvious in the interaction between ME and MSregarding the dimensions of Power and affect, indicat-ing that the predictive power of ME for these dimen-sions depended significantly on the style in which thepieces were played. This could indicate that in the caseof high arousal emotions, the expressive style does mat-ter and we are literally not moved or cannot be movedby deadpan renditions, something that does not appearin the VE and MS interactions at all. In fact, MS inter-acts with VE only when taking the piece that was playedinto account. Therefore it would be pertinent in futureresearch to further examine the role of dynamic andtemporal variability on ME in a more fine grained waythan what we managed here, perhaps with a wider vari-ety of ME items as we mentioned earlier, since we knowthese factors have an important role on expectations(see work on final ritardando based on runners’ decel-eration by Friberg and Sundberg, 1999).

To be sure, expectations are at the very heart of theconcept of entrainment and are perhaps not far fromthe BRECVEMA mechanism of ‘‘musical expectancy’’proposed by Juslin et al. (Juslin, 2013; Juslin et al., 2010).But as mentioned earlier, listener features must also betaken into account since not all listeners are equallysensitive in this way. That was also reflected in ourresults, which showed a certain amount of variability.

Indeed, both VE and ME were differently predicteddepending on the participants’ musical preference scoreand level of empathy. And indeed, empathy is numberedamong Scherer and Zenter’s (2001) emotion elicitationroutes where they suggest one might come to feel theemotion expressed by musicians by identifying withthem. But since participants did not know and couldnot see the violinist in this study, perhaps a different butclosely related mechanism is at play, namely motormimicry. Typically, this mechanism is related to empa-thy when one observes the (motor) expression ofanother person, which produces similar but less intensemotor activations in our own body and this is enhancedwhen we like said person. This ability is thought to helpobservers to perceive what is being expressed and per-haps even understand and ‘‘feel with’’ the other. Assum-ing the same mechanisms are at play when listening tothe motor expression in a musical performance, onecould posit that strongly empathic listeners – especiallythose who like the genre – would be more likely to feelentrained because they feel the movements required toproduce the sounds in the form of regularly timedmotor activations (Sonnby-Borgstrom, 2002).

In a field where few instruments for the measurementof subjective experiences to music exist, we believe theMEQ will be of great help not only in assisting self-reports of affective experiences to music, but also per-haps in inferring some of the mechanisms that inducethese experiences and shedding more light on the pro-cess of entrainment. Finding not one but two dimen-sions also opens up a lot of possibilities and one wouldbe to investigate the dynamic unfolding of these feelingsover time. This is why we intend to have participantscontinuously judge their feelings of entrainmentaccording to each of these dimensions in future versionsof the experiment.

However, we would like to stress that we believe andacknowledge the fact that it is highly unlikely that anyone mechanism alone accounts for such complex phe-nomena as aesthetic emotions. In our own study bothempathy and the personal preferences of our partici-pants moderated the effects we found. Further, we areaware of the fact that controlling for the gender vari-able might have had an impact on our results andcertainly limits the generalizability of our findingsuntil further testing with both men and women is car-ried out. Finally, though in this study we focused ononly one level of the musical experience (i.e., subjectivefeeling), we would like to propose that much in thesame way that emotions are conceived as processesencompassing various subsystems (i.e., cognition,motivation, physiological reactions, motor expressions


and feelings, Grandjean et al., 2008), it is also possibleto think of entrainment as a complex mechanism func-tioning at several related levels that interact with oneanother (Trost & Vuilleumier, 2013) including a subjec-tive feeling component that can be reliably self-reportedby listeners. We believe that it is this last componentthat we have managed to bring to light in this study. Butfurther studies should address how these two self-reported entrainment measures of feeling of entrain-ment might be related to different patterns of peripheralmeasures and which underlying brain mechanisms con-stitute the sources of these two different kinds ofentrainment.

Author Note

We would like to thank Olivier Rosset and Julien Savary,who adapted the flash interfaces used in these studies, aswell as Renaud Capuçon for graciously giving of histime and talent to perform the various versions neededof the pieces used in this study and Lucas Tamarit forrecording them. This work is part of the 7th FrameworkEU project SIEMPRE.

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Carolina Labbe, Campus Biotech, CISA –University of Geneva, Case Postale 60, CH1211, Geneve20, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected]

References

BARON-COHEN, S., & WHEELWRIGHT, S. (2004). The empathyquotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndromeor high functioning autism, and normal sex differences.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 163-175.

BAUMGARTNER, T., ESSLEN, M., & JANCKE, L. (2006). Fromemotion perception to emotion experience: Emotions evokedby pictures and classical music. International Journal ofPsychophysiology, 60, 34-43. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.04.007

BERNARDI, L., PORTA, C., CASUCCI, G., BALSAMO, R., BERNARDI,N. F., FOGARI, R., & SLEIGHT, P. (2009). Dynamic interactionsbetween musical, cardiovascular, and cerebral rhythms inhumans. Circulation, 119, 3171-3180. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.108.806174

BHARUCHA, J. J., CURTIS, M., & PAROO, K. (2006). Varieties ofmusical experience. Cognition, 100, 131-172. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.11.008

BOLGER, D., TROST, W., & SCHON, D. (2013). Rhythm implicitlyaffects temporal orienting of attention across modalities. ActaPsychologica, 142, 238-244. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.11.012

CHAPIN, H., JANTZEN, K., KELSO, J. A. S., STEINBERG, F., &LARGE, E. W. (2010). Dynamic emotional and neuralresponses to music depend on performance expression andlistener experience. PLoS ONE, 5, e13812-e13812. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013812

CLAYTON, M., SAGER, R., & WILL, U. (2005). In time with themusic: The concept of entrainment and its significance for eth-nomusicology. European Seminar in Ethnomusicology, 1, 3-75.

CRAIG, A. D. B. (2003). A new view of pain as a homeostaticemotion. Trends in Neurosciences, 26, 303-307. doi: 10.1016/S0166-2236(03)00123-1

DAMASIO, A. R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and thepossible functions of the prefrontal cortex. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 351,1413-1420. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1996.0125

ETZEL, J. A., JOHNSEN, E. L., DICKERSON, J., TRANEL, D., &ADOLPHS, R. (2006). Cardiovascular and respiratory responsesduring musical mood induction. International Journal ofPsychophysiology, 61, 57-69. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.10.025

FRIBERG, A., & SUNDBERG, J. (1999). Does music performanceallude to locomotion? A model of final ritardandi derived frommeasurements of stopping runners. Journal of the AcousticalSociety of America, 105, 1469-1484. doi: Doi 10.1121/1.426687

FRIJDA, N. H., KUIPERS, P., & TERSCHURE, E. (1989). Relationsamong emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212-228. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.57.2.212

FUJIOKA, T., TRAINOR, L. J., LARGE, E. W., & ROSS, B. (2009).Beta and gamma rhythms in human auditory cortex duringmusical beat processing. Annals of the New York Academy ofSciences, 1169, 89-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04779.x

FUJIOKA, T., ZENDEL, B. R., & ROSS, B. (2010). Endogenousneuromagnetic activity for mental hierarchy of timing. TheJournal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society forNeuroscience, 30, 3458-3466. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3086-09.2010

GEISER, E., SANDMANN, P., JANCKE, L., & MEYER, M. (2010).Refinement of metre perception – Training increases hierar-chical metre processing. European Journal of Neuroscience, 32,1979-1985. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07462.x

GEISER, E., ZIEGLER, E., JANCKE, L., & MEYER, M. (2009). Earlyelectrophysiological correlates of meter and rhythm processingin music perception. Cortex, 45, 93-102. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2007.09.010

GRANDJEAN, D., SANDER, D., & SCHERER, K. R. (2008).Conscious emotional experience emerges as a function ofmultilevel, appraisal-driven response synchronization.Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 484-495. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2008.03.019


JANATA, P., TOMIC, S. T., & HABERMAN, J. M. (2012).Sensorimotor coupling in music and the psychology of thegroove. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141,54-75. doi: 10.1037/a0024208

JONES, M. R., & BOLTZ, M. (1989). Dynamic attending andresponses to time. Psychological Review, 96, 459-491.

JUSLIN, P. N. (2013). From everyday emotions to aestheticemotions: Towards a unified theory of musical emotions.Physics of Life Reviews, 10, 235-266. doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2013.05.008

JUSLIN, P. N., LILJESTROM, S., VASTFJALL, D., & LUNDQVIST,L.-O. (2010). How does music evoke emotions? Exploring theunderlying mechanisms. In P. N. Juslin & J. Sloboda (Eds.),Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research, applications(pp. 605-642). New York: Oxford University Press.

JUSLIN, P. N., & VASTFJALL, D. (2008). Emotional responses tomusic: The need to consider underlying mechanisms.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 559-575. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X08005293

KHALFA, S., ROY, M., RAINVILLE, P., DALLA BELLA, S., & PERETZ,I. (2008). Role of tempo entrainment in psychophysiologicaldifferentiation of happy and sad music? International Journalof Psychophysiology, 68, 17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.12.001

KREIBIG, S. D., WILHELM, F. H., ROTH, W. T., & GROSS, J. J.(2007). Cardiovascular, electrodermal, and respiratoryresponse patterns to fear- and sadness-inducing films.Psychophysiology, 44, 787-806. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00550.x

KRUMHANSL, C. (1997). An exploratory study of musical emo-tions and psychophysiology. Canadian Journal of ExperimentalPsychology, 51, 336-353.

LAWRENCE, E. J., SHAW, P., BAKER, D., BARON-COHEN, S., &DAVID, A. S. (2004). Measuring empathy: Reliability and validityof the Empathy Quotient. Psychologial Medicine, 34, 911-919.

MCAULEY, J. D. (2010). Tempo and rhythm. In M. R. Jones, R. R.Fay & A. N. Popper (Eds.), Music perception. Springer hand-book of auditory research (Vol. 36, pp. 165-199). New York:Springer Science.

MIU, A. C., & BALTES , F. R. (2012). Empathy manipulationimpacts music-induced emotions: A psychophysiological studyon opera. PLoS ONE, 7, e30618-e30618. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030618

NOZARADAN, S., PERETZ, I., MISSAL, M., & MOURAUX, A.(2011). Tagging the neuronal entrainment to beat and meter.Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 10234-10240. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0411-11.2011

NYKLICEK, I., THAYER, J. F., & VAN DOORNEN, L. J. P. (1997).Cardiorespiratory differentiation of musically-induced emo-tions. Journal of Psychophysiology, 11, 304-321.

PALMER, C. (1997). Music performance. Annual Review ofPsychology, 48, 115-138. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.115

PHILLIPS-SILVER, J., & TRAINOR, L. J. (2005). Feeling the beat:Movement influences infant rhythm perception. Science, 308,1430-1430. doi: 10.1126/science.1110922

REPP, B. H. (2005). Sensorimotor synchronization: A review ofthe tapping literature. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12,969-992.

ROUSSEAU, J.-J. (2002). Essai sur l’origine des langues. Ou il estparle de la Melodie et de l’Imitation musicale. [Essay on theorigin of languages]. Retrieved from http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Rousseau_jj/essai_origine_des_langues/essai_origine_langues.html doi: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1522/cla.roj.ess

SAKAI, K., HIKOSAKA, O., MIYAUCHI, S., TAKINO, R., TAMADA,T., IWATA, N. K., & NIELSEN, M. (1999). Neural representationof a rhythm depends on its interval ratio. Journal ofNeuroscience, 19, 10074-10081.

SANDER, D., GRANDJEAN, D., & SCHERER, K. R. (2005).A systems approach to appraisal mechanisms in emotion.Neural Networks, 18, 317-352. doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2005.03.001

SANDER, D., & SCHERER, K. R. (2009). The Oxford companion toemotion and the affective sciences. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

SAXE, R., & BARON-COHEN, S. (2006). The neuroscience oftheory of mind. Social Neuroscience, 1, 1-9. doi: 10.1080/17470910601117463

SCHERER, K. R. (2004). Which emotions can be induced bymusic? What are the underlying mechanisms? And how canwe measure them? Journal of New Music Research, 33, 239-251.doi: 10.1080/0929821042000317822

SCHERER, K. R., & ZENTNER, M. R. (2001). Emotional effects ofmusic: Production rules. In P. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.),Music and emotion: Theory and research (pp. 361-392). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

SONNBY-BORGSTROM, M. (2002). Automatic mimicry reactionsas related to differences in emotional empathy. ScandinavianJournal of Psychology, 43, 433-443. doi: 10.1111/1467-9450.00312

STRACK, F., MARTIN, L. L., & STEPPER, S. (1988). Inhibiting andfacilitating conditions of the human smile: A nonobtrusive testof the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 54, 768-777.

TORRES-ELIARD, K., LABBE, C., & GRANDJEAN, D. (2011).Towards a dynamic approach to the study of emotionsexpressed by music. In A. Camurri, C. Costa, & G. Volpe(Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International ICST Conference onIntelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment (pp. 252-259). Genoa, Italy: Institute for Computer Sciences, SocialInformatics and Telecommunications Engineering.

TROST, W., ETHOFER, T., ZENTNER, M., & VUILLEUMIER, P.(2012). Mapping aesthetic musical emotions in the brain.Cerebral Cortex, 22, 2769-2783. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr353


http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/Rousseau_jj/essai_origine_des_langues/essai_origine_langues.html doi: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1522/cla.roj.ess




TROST, W., & VUILLEUMIER, P. (2013). ‘Rhythmic entrainment’ asa mechanism for emotion induction and contagion by music:A neurophysiological perspective. In T. Cochrane, B. Fantini &K. R. Scherer (Eds.), The emotional power of music (pp. 213-226). New York: Oxford University Press.

VUOSKOSKI, J. K., & EEROLA, T. (2011). Measuring music-induced emotion: A comparison of emotion models, person-ality biases, and intensity of experiences. Musicae Scientiae, 15,159-173. doi: 10.1177/1029864911403367

WILL, U., & BERG, E. (2007). Brain wave synchronization andentrainment to periodic acoustic stimuli. Neuroscience Letters,424, 55-60. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2007.07.036

ZENTNER, M., & EEROLA, T. (2010a). Self-report measures andmodels of musical emotions. In P. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda(Eds.), Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research,applications (pp. 187-221). New York: Oxford University Press.

ZENTNER, M., & EEROLA, T. (2010b). Rhythmic engagement withmusic in infancy. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the United States of America, 1073, 5768-5773. doi:10.1073/pnas.1000121107

ZENTNER, M., GRANDJEAN, D., & SCHERER, K. R. (2008).Emotions evoked by the sound of music: Characterization,classification, and measurement. Emotion, 8(4), 494-521. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.8.4.494

Appendix

FIGURE A1. First measures of the “Bach” stimulus from his second partita in D minor, BWV 1004, I. Allemanda.

FIGURE A2. First measures of the “Beethoven” stimulus from his violin concerto in D major, Op. 61, II. Larghetto.

FIGURE A3. First measures of the “Brahms” training stimulus from his first violin sonata in G major, Op. 78, I. Vivace ma non troppo.

FIGURE A4. First measures of the “Franck” stimulus from his sonata for piano & violin in A major, FWV 8, II. Allegro.


FIGURE A7. First measures of the “Mendelssohn” stimulus from his second violin concerto in E minor, Op. 64, I. Allegro molto appassionato starting at

the third measure.

FIGURE A6. First measures of the “Massenet” stimulus from Thaıs, “Meditation.”

FIGURE A8. First measures of the “Mozart” stimulus from his Violin concerto no. 3 in G major, K.216, I. Allegro.

FIGURE A5. First measures of the “Gluck” stimulus from Orpheus & Eurydice, “Melody.”


FIGURE A9. First measures of the “Schumann” from his violin concerto in D minor, Op. Posth., I. “In Kraftigem, Nicht Zu Schnellem Tempo.”

FIGURE A10. First measures of the “Sibelius” stimulus from his violin concerto in D minor, Op. 47, I. Allegro moderato.


musical emotions predicted by feelings of entrainment. music

Documents