Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

A Survey on Multimodal Music Emotion Recognition

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Audio plus lyrics dominates music-emotion AI, survey finds

desk verdict A genuinely useful map of MMER with a sensible four-stage framework and fusion taxonomy, but the evidence table has two confirmed citation errors and the headline accuracy ranking is not commensurable; it deserves peer review but only with mandatory table-level verification. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18799 v1 pith:LXJV4GUJ submitted 2025-04-26 cs.MM cs.SDeess.AS

Rashini Liyanarachchi , Aditya Joshi , Erik Meijering This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.MMcs.SDeess.AS
keywords multimodalmusicemotionrecognitioninformationretrievalfeaturefusionaudioandlyricsdeeplearningannotationcross-modalprocessingbenchmarkdatasets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This survey tries to establish that multimodal music emotion recognition (MMER) can be understood as a four-stage pipeline — data selection, feature extraction, feature processing, and emotion prediction — and that every published approach is a combination of one of three feature-processing options and one of four fusion strategies. Its main empirical finding is that the field has converged on audio-plus-lyrics pairs with deep-learning fusion, while other modalities remain thinly explored. It also argues that progress is gated less by model design than by data: most datasets are small, single-genre, and often copyright-restricted, and no benchmark has been built specifically for MMER. The survey matters because it maps where the field is concentrated and where capacity is missing, which is the information needed to decide what datasets and evaluation protocols should be built next.

What carries the argument

The organizing object is the four-stage MMER framework, with Stage 3 and Stage 4 carrying the taxonomy: three feature-processing approaches (feature concatenation, modality-specific processing, and cross-modal processing) plus four fusion categories (feature-level, decision-level, model-level, and cross-modal). The survey uses this grid as the axis of its literature table, and the trend claims follow from counting which cells the surveyed systems occupy. The cross-modal cell is the newest and is carried by an emotion long short-term memory (E-LSTM) cell that passes a historical emotion vector from one lyric-audio pair to the next, which the survey identifies as the mechanism that lets emotional states persist across modal interactions.

What would settle it

Run the surveyed systems on one held-out multimodal test set with a single emotion-annotation protocol; if the best model changes or the audio-plus-lyrics advantage disappears, the survey's core trend claim would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that MMER research is organized by a four-stage pipeline: choose multimodal data (audio, lyrics, video, MIDI, physiological signals, text, metadata), extract features from each, process those features in one of three ways (direct concatenation, modality-specific processing, or cross-modal interaction), then predict emotion using feature-level, decision-level, model-level, or cross-modal fusion. Within that organization, the survey finds that the large majority of systems use audio and lyrics as the only modalities, that deep learning (CNN, LSTM, and BERT-family models) now dominates, and that reported accuracy varies widely across datasets and emotion models. It further claims that no MMER-specific benchmark exists, so cross-paper performance comparison is informal, and that the highest published classification accuracy in the surveyed table is 94.58%, from a CNN-BERT audio-plus-lyrics late-fusion system. The authors' conclusion is that the field's bottlenecks are the absence of a precise emotion model, limited and narrowly scoped datasets, and missing benchmarks, not the fusion architectures themselves.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's trend and ranking claims assume that the accuracy numbers collected from different papers, tested on different datasets with different emotion labels and class counts, are directly comparable and that each table entry faithfully reports its source.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the field is as concentrated on audio plus lyrics as the survey counts suggest, adding a third modality — video, MIDI, physiological signals, or metadata — is the most direct route to new performance, because the under-explored cells have the most headroom.
  • The absence of an MMER benchmark means that any claim of state-of-the-art status, including the 94.58% figure, is only meaningful within the dataset and annotation scheme it was reported on.
  • If dataset scale and diversity are the bottleneck, then unsupervised collection pipelines and transfer learning are natural next steps, as the survey itself recommends.
  • The four-stage framework gives future papers a shared vocabulary, so a new system can be described by which stage-3 approach and stage-4 fusion it uses rather than by ad-hoc architecture names.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The survey does not test this, but its taxonomy implies a controlled experiment that would settle the fusion question: hold the feature extractors fixed, vary only the fusion strategy on one dataset, and compare the three processing approaches directly.
  • A reader could infer from the table that cross-modal approaches should beat concatenation on the same dataset when the modalities carry complementary information, because cross-modal methods are the only ones that model interaction explicitly.
  • The survey's own comparison table suggests a testable hypothesis the authors do not pursue: a standardized MMER benchmark with one emotion model, one annotation protocol, and per-modality ablations would likely rewrite the current ranking, since several top reported numbers come from different datasets and class counts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript surveys multimodal music emotion recognition (MMER), proposing a four-stage framework (data selection, feature extraction, feature processing, emotion prediction) with three feature-processing approaches and four fusion categories. It reviews emotion models, modalities, datasets, and evaluation metrics, and compiles a table of 23 MMER systems (Table 6) to support claims about current trends: that audio-plus-lyrics is the dominant modality pair, that deep learning and late fusion represent the current state of the art, and that no MMER-specific benchmark exists. The survey also identifies dataset scarcity, benchmark absence, and lack of model interpretability as key gaps, and suggests future directions including more modalities, transfer learning, and real-time processing.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, the survey provides a useful organizational scaffold for a growing field and a clearly articulated account of the missing MMER benchmark, which is a falsifiable and actionable gap. The four-stage framework and the fusion taxonomy are simple and reusable, and Table 3 is a convenient compact dataset reference. The paper does not present machine-checked proofs or code, but for a survey the main contribution is the synthesis; that synthesis, however, rests heavily on Table 6, whose provenance and comparability need to be established before the trend claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1.2, Table 6] The global performance ranking in Section 4.1.2 is not supported because Table 6 pools results from different datasets (MoodyLyrics, DEAM, PMEmo, FMA, self-collected sets) that use different emotion taxonomies, class counts, and evaluation protocols. The sentence declaring 94.58% as 'the highest accuracy of 94.58% for classification to date' from reference [77] is only meaningful if dataset, label scheme, class count, and evaluation split are held fixed, which they are not. Please restrict any accuracy comparisons to matched settings, or replace global rankings with per-dataset, per-task tables.
  2. [§3.3.2, Table 6, Table 2] Several source attributions in the evidence tables are demonstrably wrong. Section 3.3.2 attributes late fusion subtask merging (LFSM) to reference [40], but [40] is a SemEval misogyny-identification paper, not an MMER work. Table 2 attributes Hevner's Emotional Model to reference [76], which is Posner et al.'s circumplex model of affect paper. Table 6 row [39] lists SVM as the method, although reference [39] is the bi-modal deep Boltzmann machine paper and Section 3.2.1 correctly describes it as DBM. Because Table 6 is the sole evidence base for the survey's trend claims, every row of the table and every associated attribution should be re-verified against primary sources; a supplementary provenance table or verification note should be provided.
  3. [§3 (framework description)] The proposed framework is described inconsistently. The Section 3 introduction states that Stage 4 'commonly involves one of two distinct approaches,' but Section 3.3 defines four fusion categories (feature-level, decision-level, model-level, cross-modal) and Figure 5 shows four such strategies. Additionally, Section 3.2.2 presents Approach 2-A and 2-B as variants of a single 'modality-specific feature processing' approach, while Figure 3 and Table 6 count them as separate approaches. The taxonomy should be enumerated consistently within the text and figures, or the text should explicitly state which level (task type vs. fusion strategy) is being counted.
  4. [§1, §3, Table 6] No literature search protocol or inclusion criteria are reported, despite the claim of a 'comprehensive overview' and a focus on recent deep learning work 'since 2022.' The reader cannot determine whether Table 6 is an exhaustive enumeration or a representative sample, what databases and query terms were used, or what criteria excluded other MMER works. This matters for the 'majority' claims in Section 4.1.2 and Section 5, which are quantitative statements about the literature. Please add a methodology paragraph covering the search strategy, screening criteria, and coverage dates, and state explicitly whether Table 6 is exhaustive or representative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; §5] The abstract contains the typo 'robust, scalable, a interpretable models' (should be 'and interpretable'), and Section 5 contains 'other (con)textural data,' which appears to be a typographical error for 'contextual.'
  2. [Table 1 caption, §2.1] The caption credits the features to 'Patrik et al. [50],' but reference [50] is the paper by Juslin and Laukka; the author name should be corrected.
  3. [§3.1.5] The text says that Thammasan [90] employed 'the MIRToolbox developed by Laurier et al. [59]'; reference [59] is by Lartillot, Toiviainen, and Eerola, so the developer name should be corrected to Lartillot et al.
  4. [Table 6, row [13]] The year for reference [13] is listed as 2021 in Table 6, but reference [13] is dated 2020 and Table 4 also lists 2020; the entries should be made consistent.
  5. [§4.1.2] The sentence reporting the 94.58% accuracy should explicitly name the dataset (MoodyLyrics) and the class/label configuration, since the bare number is not interpretable without that context, and the reference appears only in the table.
  6. [§3.3.2] The phrase 'late fusion subtask merging (LFSM)' is introduced without a definition; please define the acronym at first use and, if it is not a standard term in the MMER literature, state which source introduced it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the survey's claims are descriptive and grounded in external cited works, with no fitted prediction or derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This is a survey paper rather than a derivation, so the circularity patterns that normally apply (self-definitional predictions, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' own prior work, ansatz smuggled in via citation) have no natural target. The central four-stage framework (data selection, feature extraction, feature processing, emotion prediction) and the three processing approaches and four fusion categories are presented as an organizational summary of the surveyed literature: the paper says 'MMER research can be summarized using a four-stage framework (Fig. 3),' which is a descriptive claim about how existing methods are grouped, not a result derived from an input that already contains the output. The trend claims in Section 4, including the statement that 'the highest accuracy of 94.58% for classification to date' was achieved by a CNN-BERT late-fusion model, are empirical summaries of Table 6 and are traceable to external primary sources. There is no self-citation chain carrying the load, and the authors' own prior work is not invoked to justify a framework or forbid alternatives. The concerns raised by reviewers about Table 6 (a possible misattribution of LFSM to reference [40], a possible misattribution of Hevner's model to reference [76], and the ranking of raw accuracies across datasets with different class counts and label schemes) are evidence-quality and comparability issues, not circularity: they affect whether the survey's empirical claims are correct, not whether those claims reduce by construction to their own inputs. No quoted passage exhibits a specific reduction of a prediction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation, so the honest finding is no significant circularity with score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The survey introduces no fitted parameters and no invented entities. Its only postulates are the descriptive framework and the reliability of its sources; the citation errors found reduce confidence in the latter.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The cited papers accurately report their methods, datasets, and performance figures (Table 6).
    The survey's trend statements and rankings rest on the reported numbers without re-evaluation. Source checks on [76] and [40] already show attribution errors, so full trust is not warranted.
  • ad hoc to paper The four-stage framework and the three processing / four fusion categories are exhaustive and faithful descriptors of the MMER literature.
    Figure 3 and Sections 3.2 and 3.3 impose the authors' own taxonomy onto the surveyed papers; exhaustiveness is asserted, not demonstrated by an independent classification procedure.
  • domain assumption The feature-emotion associations in Table 1 are valid background knowledge for MER.
    Section 2.1 adopts these mappings from Juslin and Laukka [50] and treats them as settled psychology.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Survey on Multimodal Music Emotion Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LXJV4GUJ

@misc{pith2026250418799,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Survey on Multimodal Music Emotion Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LXJV4GUJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18799}
}
read the original abstract

Multimodal music emotion recognition (MMER) is an emerging discipline in music information retrieval that has experienced a surge in interest in recent years. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of the current state-of-the-art in MMER. Discussing the different approaches and techniques used in this field, the paper introduces a four-stage MMER framework, including multimodal data selection, feature extraction, feature processing, and final emotion prediction. The survey further reveals significant advancements in deep learning methods and the increasing importance of feature fusion techniques. Despite these advancements, challenges such as the need for large annotated datasets, datasets with more modalities, and real-time processing capabilities remain. This paper also contributes to the field by identifying critical gaps in current research and suggesting potential directions for future research. The gaps underscore the importance of developing robust, scalable, a interpretable models for MMER, with implications for applications in music recommendation systems, therapeutic tools, and entertainment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18799 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Russell’s Circumplex Model. Emotions are characterized by valence (ranging from negative to positive) along the horizontal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Modalities used in MMER. (2) Lyrics: Textual content of songs play a role in conveying underlying emotions. Features such as word choice, themes, and sentiment can be used to identify and interpret the emotions conveyed by the lyrics. (3) Visuals: Music is often accompanied by videos, live performances, or animations containing visual indicators like color, lighting, facial expressions, and body language, which cont… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Framework summarizing past and current MMER methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Categorization of audio features. Reference Feature Year Timbre Spectral Chen and Li [13] MFCC, ZCR, Chroma Spectral Centroid, Spectral Spread, Spectral Roll-Off, Spectral Flux 2020 Liu and Tan [63] MFCC Spectrum Centroid 2020 Pandeya et al. [73] MFCC, ZCR - 2021 Chen …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of fusion methods in music emotion prediction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Where Does AI Innovation Go? Measuring Research Attention Imbalance in AI Music

    cs.CY 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    AI music research concentrates technical and frontier-method investment in generation and content tasks, while education, health, and governance receive less support and adopt new methods years later.

  2. Evaluating the Impact of AI-Powered Audiovisual Personalization on Learner Emotion, Focus, and Learning Outcomes

    cs.AI 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper is a design and evaluation plan for an AI-generated personalized audiovisual study environment, with no empirical results reported.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [76]

    Jonathan Posner, James A Russell, and Bradley S Peterson. 2005. The circumplex model of affect: An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology 17, 3 (2005), 715–734. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050340

    doi:10.1017/s0954579405050340 2005

  2. [40]

    Álvaro Huertas-García, Helena Liz, Guillermo Villar-Rodríguez, Alejandro Martín, Javier Huertas-Tato, and David Camacho. 2022. AIDA-UPM at SemEval-2022 Task 5: Exploring multimodal late information fusion for multimedia automatic misogyny identification. InInternational Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval). Association for Computational Linguistics, ...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.semeval-1.107 2022

  3. [77]

    Konstantinos Pyrovolakis, Paraskevi Tzouveli, and Giorgos Stamou. 2022. Multi-modal song mood detection with deep learning. Sensors 22, 3 (2022), 1065. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22031065

    doi:10.3390/s22031065 2022

  4. [39]

    Moyuan Huang, Wenge Rong, Tom Arjannikov, Nan Jiang, and Zhang Xiong. 2016. Bi-modal deep Boltzmann machine based musical emotion classification. In Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning (ICANN) . Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44781-0_24

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44781-0_24 2016

  5. [1]

    Christopher Akiki and Manuel Burghardt. 2021. MuSe: The musical sentiment dataset. Journal of Open Humanities Data 7 (2021), 10. https: //doi.org/10.5334/johd.33

    work page doi:10.5334/johd.33 2021

  6. [2]

    Veltkamp

    Anna Aljanaki, Frans Wiering, and Remco C. Veltkamp. 2016. Studying emotion induced by music through a crowdsourcing game. Information Processing & Management 52, 1 (2016), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2015.03.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2015.03.004 2016

  7. [3]

    Anna Aljanaki, Yi-Hsuan Yang, and Mohammad Soleymani. 2017. Developing a benchmark for emotional analysis of music. PLOS ONE 12, 3 (2017), e0173392. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173392

    doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173392 2017

  8. [4]

    Tadas Baltrušaitis, Chaitanya Ahuja, and Louis-Philippe Morency. 2017. Multimodal Machine Learning: A Survey and Taxonomy. arXiv:1705.09406 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09406

    arXiv 2017

Show all 118 references
  1. [5]

    Forrest Sheng Bao, Xin Liu, and Christina Zhang. 2011. PyEEG: An open source Python module for EEG/MEG feature extraction. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2011, 1 (2011), 406391. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/406391

    2011 doi

  2. [6]

    Lisa Feldman Barrett. 2006. Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the experience of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10, 1 (2006), 20–46. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_2 PMID: 16430327

    2006 doi

  3. [7]

    Ellis, Brian Whitman, and Paul Lamere

    Thierry Bertin-Mahieux, Daniel P.W. Ellis, Brian Whitman, and Paul Lamere. 2011. The million song dataset. In International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR) . International Society for Music Information Retrieval, Miami, Florida, USA, 591–596. https: ...

    2011 doi

  4. [8]

    Dmitry Bogdanov, Xabier Lizarraga-Seijas, Pablo Alonso-Jiménez, and Xavier Serra. 2022. MusAV: A dataset of relative arousal-valence annotations for validation of audio models. InInternational Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR). International Society fo...

    2022 doi

  5. [9]

    Dmitry Bogdanov, Minz Won, Philip Tovstogan, Alastair Porter, and Xavier Serra. 2019. The MTG-Jamendo dataset for automatic music tagging. In International Conference on Machine Learning . Semantic Scholar, Long Beach, California, USA, 1–3. https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corp...

    2019

  6. [10]

    Cibele Maia Burke. 2017. A comparative study of perspectives in musical structural features and emotional stimuli. In Honors Theses. Eastern Kentucky University, Kentucky, USA, 1–21. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:67822675

    2017

  7. [11]

    Carr, Kirk N

    Nathan R. Carr, Kirk N. Olsen, and William Forde Thompson. 2023. The perceptual and emotional consequences of articulation in music. Music Perception 40, 3 (2023), 202–219. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2023.40.3.202

    2023 doi

  8. [12]

    Vybhav Chaturvedi, Arman Beer Kaur, Vedansh Varshney, Anupam Garg, Gurpal Singh Chhabra, and Munish Kumar. 2021. Music mood and human emotion recognition based on physiological signals: A systematic review. Multimedia Systems 28 (2021), 21–44. https://api.semanticscholar. org/...

    2021

  9. [13]

    Changfeng Chen and Qiang Li. 2020. A multimodal music emotion classification method based on multifeature combined network classifier. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2020, 1 (2020), 4606027. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4606027

    2020 doi

  10. [14]

    Wenwen Chen. 2022. A novel long short-term memory network model for multimodal music emotion analysis in affective computing. Journal of Applied Science and Engineering 26, 3 (2022), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.6180/jase.202303_26(3).0008

    2022 doi

  11. [15]

    Yu-An Chen, Yi-Hsuan Yang, Ju-Chiang Wang, and Homer Chen. 2015. The AMG1608 dataset for music emotion recognition. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 693–697. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2015

  12. [16]

    Sandler, and Kyunghyun Cho

    Keunwoo Choi, György Fazekas, Mark B. Sandler, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2017. Convolutional recurrent neural networks for music classification. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2392–2396. https:...

    2017

  13. [17]

    Phoebe Chua, Dimos Makris, Dorien Herremans, Gemma Roig, and Kat Agres. 2022. Predicting emotion from music videos: Exploring the relative contribution of visual and auditory information to affective responses. arXiv:2202.10453 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.10453

    2022 doi arXiv

  14. [18]

    Xu Cui, Yongrong Wu, Jipeng Wu, Zhiyu You, Jianbing Xiahou, and Menglin Ouyang. 2022. A review: Music-emotion recognition and analysis based on EEG signals. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 16 (2022), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2022.997282

    2022

  15. [19]

    Dakshina and Rajeswari Sridhar

    K. Dakshina and Rajeswari Sridhar. 2014. LDA based emotion recognition from lyrics. In Advanced Computing, Networking and Informatics , Vol. 1. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07353-8_22

    2014 doi

  16. [20]

    Rémi Delbouys, Romain Hennequin, Francesco Piccoli, Jimena Royo-Letelier, and Manuel Moussallam. 2018. Music mood detection based on audio and lyrics with deep neural net. arXiv:1809.07276 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1809.07276

    2018 doi arXiv

  17. [21]

    Wan Ding, Mingyu Xu, Dongyan Huang, Weisi Lin, Minghui Dong, Xinguo Yu, and Haizhou Li. 2016. Audio and face video emotion recognition in the wild using deep neural networks and small datasets. In ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI) . Association for ...

    2016

  18. [22]

    Isabela Dogaru, Adrian Furnham, and Alastair McClelland. 2024. Understanding how the presence of music in advertisements influences consumer behaviour. Acta Psychologica 248 (2024), 104333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104333

    2024

  19. [23]

    Darren Edmonds and João Sedoc. 2021. Multi-emotion classification for song lyrics. In Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis. Association for Computational Linguistics, Kerrville, Texas, USA, 221–235. https://aclanthology.org/...

    2021

  20. [24]

    Vuoskoski

    Tuomas Eerola and Jonna K. Vuoskoski. 2011. A comparison of the discrete and dimensional models of emotion in music. Psychology of Music 39, 1 (2011), 18–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735610362821

    2011 doi

  21. [25]

    Paul Ekman. 1971. Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation . University of Nebraska Press, Nebraska, USA, 207–283. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1973-11154-001

    1971

  22. [26]

    Zhouyu Fu, Guojun Lu, Kai Ting, and Dengsheng Zhang. 2011. A survey of audio-based music classification and annotation. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 13, 2 (2011), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2010.2098858

    2011

  23. [27]

    Gemmeke, Daniel P

    Jort F. Gemmeke, Daniel P. W. Ellis, Dylan Freedman, Aren Jansen, Wade Lawrence, R. Channing Moore, Manoj Plakal, and Marvin Ritter. 2017. Audio Set: An ontology and human-labeled dataset for audio events. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Proces...

    2017

  24. [28]

    Juan Sebastián Gómez-Cañón, Nicolás Gutiérrez-Páez, Lorenzo Porcaro, Alastair Porter, Estefanía Cano, Perfecto Herrera-Boyer, Aggelos Gkiokas, Patricia Santos, Davinia Hernández-Leo, Casper Karreman, and Emilia Gómez. 2022. TROMPA-MER: An open dataset for personalized music em...

    2022 doi

  25. [29]

    Vadim Grigorev, Jiayu Li, Weizhi Ma, Zhiyu He, Min Zhang, Yiqun Liu, Ming Yan, and Ji Zhang. 2024. SiTunes: A situational music recommendation dataset with physiological and psychological signals. In Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR) . Associati...

    2024

  26. [30]

    Donghong Han, Yanru Kong, Han Jiayi, and Guoren Wang. 2022. A survey of music emotion recognition. Frontiers of Computer Science 16 (2022), 166335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-021-0569-4

    2022 doi

  27. [31]

    Xiao Han, Fuyang Chen, and Junrong Ban. 2023. Music emotion recognition based on a neural network with an inception-gru residual structure. Electronics 12, 4 (2023), 978. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12040978

    2023 doi

  28. [32]

    Na He and Sam Ferguson. 2022. Music emotion recognition based on segment-level two-stage learning. International Journal of Multimedia Information Retrieval 11, 3 (2022), 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13735-022-00230-z

    2022 doi

  29. [33]

    T. Higuchi. 1988. Approach to an irregular time series on the basis of the fractal theory. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 31, 2 (1988), 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(88)90081-4

    1988 doi

  30. [34]

    Mohammad Hossin and Sulaiman M.N. 2015. A review on evaluation metrics for data classification evaluations. International Journal of Data Mining & Knowledge Management Process 5, 2 (2015), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijdkp.2015.5201

    2015

  31. [35]

    Yu-Liang Hsu, Jeen-Shing Wang, Wei-Chun Chiang, and Chien-Han Hung. 2020. Automatic ECG-based emotion recognition in music listening. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 11, 1 (2020), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2017.2781732

    2020

  32. [36]

    Xiao Hu, Fanjie Li, and Ruilun Liu. 2022. Detecting music-induced emotion based on acoustic analysis and physiological sensing: A multimodal approach. Applied Sciences 12, 18 (2022), 9354. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12189354 Manuscript A Survey on Multimodal Music Emotion Reco...

    2022 doi

  33. [37]

    Xiao Hu, Fanjie Li, and Jeremy Ng. 2018. On the relationships between music-induced emotion and physiological signals. In International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR) . International Society for Music Information Retrieval, Paris, France, 362–369. h...

    2018

  34. [38]

    Jingyue Huang, Ke Chen, and Yi-Hsuan Yang. 2024. Emotion-driven Piano Music Generation via Two-stage Disentanglement and Functional Representation. arXiv:2407.20955 [cs.SD] https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.20955

    2024 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Hsiao-Tzu Hung, Joann Ching, Seungheon Doh, Nabin Kim, Juhan Nam, and Yi-Hsuan Yang. 2021. EMOPIA: A multi-modal pop piano dataset for emotion recognition and emotion-based music generation. arXiv:2108.01374 https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.01374

    2021 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Arefin Huq, Juan Pablo Bello, and Robert Rowe. 2010. Automated music emotion recognition: A systematic evaluation. Journal of New Music Research 39, 3 (2010), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/09298215.2010.513733

    2010

  37. [43]

    Mazhar Hussain, Mattias O’Nils, Jan Lundgren, and Seyed Jalaleddin Mousavirad. 2024. A comprehensive review on deep learning-based data fusion. IEEE Access 12 (2024), 180093–180124. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3508271

    2024

  38. [44]

    Mohammadreza Iman, Hamid Reza Arabnia, and Khaled Rasheed. 2023. A review of deep transfer learning and recent advancements. Technologies 11, 2 (2023), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies11020040

    2023 doi

  39. [45]

    Byungsoo Jeon, Chanju Kim, Adrian Kim, Dongwon Kim, Jangyeon Park, and Jung-Woo Ha. 2017. Music emotion recognition via end-to-end multimodal neural networks. In ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) . ACM, Como, Italy, 1–2. https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:416794

    2017

  40. [46]

    Il-Young Jeong and Kyogu Lee. 2016. Learning temporal features using a deep neural network and its application to music genre classification. In International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR) . International Society for Music Information Retrieval, Ne...

    2016

  41. [47]

    Mukkamala Jitendra and Radhika Yalavarthi. 2020. A review: Music feature extraction from an audio signal. International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering 9 (2020), 973–980. https://doi.org/10.30534/ijatcse/2020/11922020

    2020 doi

  42. [48]

    Charles Joseph and Sugeeswari Lekamge. 2019. Machine learning approaches for emotion classification of music: A systematic literature review. In International Conference on Advancements in Computing (ICAC) . IEEE, Malabe, Sri Lanka, 334–339. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAC49085.2...

    2019

  43. [49]

    Patrik N. Juslin. 2001. Communicating emotion in music performance: A review and theoretical framework. In Music and Emotion: Theory and Research. Oxford Academic, New York, NY, USA, 309–338. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192631886.003.0014

    2001

  44. [50]

    Juslin and Petri Laukka

    Patrik N. Juslin and Petri Laukka. 2004. Expression, perception, and induction of musical emotions: A review and a questionnaire study of everyday listening. Journal of New Music Research 33, 3 (2004), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/0929821042000317813

    2004 doi

  45. [51]

    Juslin, Laura S

    Patrik N. Juslin, Laura S. Sakka, Gonçalo T. Barradas, and Olivier Lartillot. 2022. Emotions, mechanisms, and individual differences in music listening: A stratified random sampling approach. Music Perception 40, 1 (2022), 55–86. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2022.40.1.55

    2022 doi

  46. [52]

    Juslin and Daniel Västfjäll

    Patrik N. Juslin and Daniel Västfjäll. 2008. Emotional responses to music: The need to consider underlying mechanisms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31, 5 (2008), 559–575. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X08005293

    2008 doi

  47. [53]

    Chenfei Kang, Peiling Lu, Botao Yu, Xu Tan, Wei Ye, Shikun Zhang, and Jiang Bian. 2023. EmoGen: Eliminating Subjective Bias in Emotional Music Generation. arXiv:2307.01229 [cs.SD] https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.01229

    2023 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Kathi J Kemper and Suzanne C Danhauer. 2005. Music as therapy. Southern Medical Journal 98, 3 (2005), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.smj. 0000154773.11986.39

    2005

  49. [55]

    Youngmoo Kim, Erik Schmidt, Raymond Migneco, Brandon Morton, Patrick Richardson, Jeffrey Scott, Jacquelin Speck, and Douglas Turnbull. 2010. Music emotion recognition: A state of the art review. In International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR) . Inte...

    2010

  50. [56]

    Hatef, Robert Duin, and Jiri Matas

    Josef Kittler, Mr. Hatef, Robert Duin, and Jiri Matas. 1998. On combining classifiers. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 20, 3 (1998), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1109/34.667881

    1998 doi

  51. [57]

    Sander Koelstra, Christian Muhl, Mohammad Soleymani, Jong-Seok Lee, Ashkan Yazdani, Touradj Ebrahimi, Thierry Pun, Anton Nijholt, and Ioannis Patras. 2012. DEAP: A database for emotion analysis using physiological signals. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 3, 1 (2012), ...

    2012 doi

  52. [58]

    Agres, and Dorien Herremans

    En Yan Koh, Kin Wai Cheuk, Kwan Yee Heung, Kat R. Agres, and Dorien Herremans. 2023. MERP: A music dataset with emotion ratings and raters’ profile information. Sensors 23, 1 (2023), 382. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23010382

    2023 doi

  53. [59]

    Olivier Lartillot, Petri Toiviainen, and Tuomas Eerola. 2007. A Matlab toolbox for music information retrieval. In Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft für Klassifikation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 261–268. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17342536

    2007

  54. [60]

    Cyril Laurier, Jens Grivolla, and Perfecto Herrera. 2008. Multimodal music mood classification using audio and lyrics. In International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA) . IEEE, San Diego, CA, USA, 688–693. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMLA.2008.96 Manuscript...

    2008 doi

  55. [61]

    Richard S. Lazarus. 1995. Vexing research problems inherent in cognitive-mediational theories of emotion- and some solutions. Psychological Inquiry 6, 3 (1995), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0603_1

    1995 doi

  56. [62]

    Lindquist and Lisa Feldman Barrett

    Kristen A. Lindquist and Lisa Feldman Barrett. 2008. Constructing emotion: The experience of fear as a conceptual act. Psychological Science 19, 9 (2008), 898–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02174.x

    2008

  57. [63]

    Gaojun Liu and Zhiyuan Tan. 2020. Research on multi-modal music emotion classification based on audio and lyrics. InIEEE Information Technology, Networking, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (ITNEC) . IEEE, Chongqing, China, 2331–2335. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITNEC4...

    2020

  58. [64]

    Zhiyuan Liu, Wei Xu, Wenping Zhang, and Qiqi Jiang. 2023. An emotion-based personalized music recommendation framework for emotion improvement. Information Processing & Management 60, 3 (2023), 103256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103256

    2023

  59. [65]

    Beth Logan. 2000. Mel frequency cepstral coefficients for music modeling. In International Symposium on Music Information Retrieval (MUSIC IR) . University of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Massachusetts, USA, 1–2. https://ismir2000.ismir.net/papers/logan_abs.pdf

    2000

  60. [66]

    Pedro Lima Louro, Hugo Redinho, Ricardo Santos, Ricardo Malheiro, Renato Panda, and Rui Pedro Paiva. 2024. MERGE – A bimodal dataset for static music emotion recognition. arXiv:2407.06060 https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.06060

    2024 arXiv

  61. [67]

    Ricardo Malheiro, Renato Panda, Paulo Gomes, and Rui Pedro Paiva. 2013. Music emotion recognition from lyrics: A comparative study. In International Workshop on Music and Machine Learning (MML) . MML, Prague, Czech Republic, 1–4. https://hdl.handle.net/10316/95165

    2013

  62. [68]

    Mohammad and Peter D

    Saif M. Mohammad and Peter D. Turney. 2013. Crowdsourcing a word–emotion association lexicon. Computational Intelligence 29, 3 (2013), 436–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8640.2012.00460.x

    2013

  63. [69]

    Pampati Nagaraju and Manchala Sadanandam. 2024. Advancements in motion detection within video streams through the integration of optical flow estimation and 3D-convolutional neural network architectures.Journal of Electrical Systems 20, 6 (2024), 2502–2517. https://doi.org/10....

    2024 doi

  64. [70]

    Mohsen Naji, Mohammad Firoozabadi, and Parviz Azadfallah. 2013. Classification of music-induced emotions based on information fusion of forehead biosignals and electrocardiogram. Cognitive Computation 6 (2013), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-013-9239-7

    2013 doi

  65. [71]

    Renato Panda, Ricardo Malheiro, and Rui Pedro Paiva. 2018. Musical texture and expressivity features for music emotion recognition. In International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR) . International Society for Music Information Retrieval, Paris, Franc...

    2018

  66. [72]

    Renato Panda, Ricardo Malheiro, Bruno Rocha, António Oliveira, and Rui Pedro Paiva. 2013. Multi-modal music emotion recognition: A new dataset, methodology and comparative analysis. In International Symposium on Computer Music Multidisciplinary Research (CMMR) . Springer Verla...

    2013

  67. [73]

    Yagya Raj Pandeya, Bhuwan Bhattarai, and Joonwhoan Lee. 2021. Deep-learning-based multimodal emotion classification for music videos. Sensors 21, 14 (2021), 4927. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21144927

    2021 doi

  68. [74]

    Igor André Pegoraro Santana, Fabio Pinhelli, Juliano Donini, Leonardo Catharin, Rafael Biazus Mangolin, Yandre Maldonado e Gomes da Costa, Valéria Delisandra Feltrim, and Marcos Aurélio Domingues. 2020. Music4All: A new music database and its applications. In 2020 Internationa...

    2020

  69. [75]

    Robert Plutchik and Henry Kellerman. 2013. EMOTION: Theory, Research, and Experience . Theories of emotion, Vol. 1. Academic press, New York, NY, USA. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780125587013/

    2013

  70. [78]

    Dhanesh Ramachandram and Graham W. Taylor. 2017. Deep multimodal learning: A survey on recent advances and trends. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 34, 6 (2017), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2017.2738401

    2017

  71. [79]

    James Russell. 1980. A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 6 (1980), 1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/ h0077714

    1980

  72. [80]

    Sujeesha A. S. and Rajan Rajeev. 2023. Transformer-based automatic music mood classification using multi-modal framework. Journal of Computer Science and Technology 23, 1 (2023), e02. https://doi.org/10.24215/16666038.23.e02

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    Andrew Sams and Amalia Zahra. 2023. Multimodal music emotion recognition in Indonesian songs based on CNN-LSTM, XLNet transformers. Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics 12, 1 (2023), 355–364. https://doi.org/10.11591/eei.v12i1.4231

    2023 doi

  74. [83]

    Klaus R. Scherer. 2005. What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information 44, 4 (2005), 695–729. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0539018405058216

    2005

  75. [84]

    Marina Sokolova and Guy Lapalme. 2009. A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks. Information Processing & Management 45, 4 (2009), 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2009.03.002

    2009 doi

  76. [85]

    Caro, Erik M

    Mohammad Soleymani, Micheal N. Caro, Erik M. Schmidt, Cheng-Ya Sha, and Yi-Hsuan Yang. 2013. 1000 songs for emotional analysis of music. In ACM International Workshop on Crowdsourcing for Multimedia (CrowdMM) (Barcelona, Spain) (CrowdMM ’13). Association for Computing Machiner...

    2013

  77. [86]

    Hannah Strauß, Julia Vigl, Peer-Ole Jacobsen, Martin Bayer, Francesca Talamini, Wolfgang Vigl, Eva Zangerle, and Marcel Zentner. 2024. The Emotion-to-Music Mapping Atlas (EMMA): A systematically organized online database of emotionally evocative music excerpts. Behavior Resear...

    2024 doi

  78. [87]

    Vivienne Sze, Yu-Hsin Chen, Tien-Ju Yang, and Joel Emer. 2017. Efficient Processing of Deep Neural Networks: A Tutorial and Survey. arXiv:1703.09039 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09039

    2017 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Tatachar

    Abhishek V. Tatachar. 2021. Comparative assessment of regression models based on model evaluation metrics. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering 8, 9 (2021), 853–860. https://www.irjet.net/archives/V8/i9/IRJET-V8I9127.pdf

    2021

  80. [89]

    Yun Joseph, and Xu Yanzhen

    Jing Wen Taylor, Chuan Ching-Hua, Anghelcev George, Sar Sela, T. Yun Joseph, and Xu Yanzhen. 2024. Infusing affective computing mod- els into advertising research on emotions. Journal of Advertising 53, 5 (2024), 710–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2024.2409254 arXiv:htt...

    2024

  81. [90]

    Nattapong Thammasan, Ken-ichi Fukui, and Masayuki Numao. 2017. Multimodal fusion of EEG and musical features in music-emotion recognition. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence . AAAI Press, San Francisco, California, USA, 4991–4992. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v31i1.11112

    2017 doi

  82. [91]

    Ha Thi Phuong Thao, Gemma Roig, and Dorien Herremans. 2023. EmoMV: Affective music-video correspondence learning datasets for classification and retrieval. Information Fusion 91 (2023), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2022.10.002

    2023 doi

  83. [92]

    Robert Thayer. 1989. The Biopsychology of Mood and Arousal . Oxford Academic, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195068276. 001.0001

    1989

  84. [93]

    Thompson

    William F. Thompson. 2013. Intervals and scales. In The Psychology of Music (3rd ed.). Academic Press, London, UK, 107–140. https://doi.org/10. 1016/B978-0-12-381460-9.00004-3

    2013

  85. [94]

    Thompson, E

    William F. Thompson, E. Glenn Schellenberg, and Gabriela Husain. 2001. Arousal, mood, and the Mozart effect. Psychological Science 12, 3 (2001), 248–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00345

    2001

  86. [95]

    Guiying Tong. 2022. Multimodal music emotion recognition method based on the combination of knowledge distillation and transfer learning. Scientific Programming 2022, 1 (2022), 2802573. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2802573

    2022 doi

  87. [96]

    Douglas Turnbull, Luke Barrington, David Torres, and Gert Lanckriet. 2008. Semantic annotation and retrieval of music and sound effects. IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 16, 2 (2008), 467–476. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASL.2007.913750

    2008

  88. [97]

    Jingyi Wang, Alireza Sharifi, Thippa Gadekallu, and Achyut Shankar. 2024. MMD-MII Model: A multilayered analysis and multimodal integration interaction approach revolutionizing music emotion classification. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 17 (2024),...

    2024 doi

  89. [98]

    Shuo-Yang Wang, Ju-Chiang Wang, Yi-Hsuan Yang, and Hsin-Min Wang. 2014. Towards time-varying music auto-tagging based on CAL500 expansion. In IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) . IEEE, Chengdu, China, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICME.2014.6890290

    2014

  90. [99]

    Xing Wang, Chen Xiaoou, Deshun Yang, and Yuqian Wu. 2011. Music emotion classification of Chinese songs based on lyrics using TF*IDF and rhyme. In International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR) . International Society for Music Information Retrieval, ...

    2011

  91. [100]

    Yongjin Wang and Ling Guan. 2008. Recognizing human emotional state from audiovisual signals. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 10, 5 (2008), 936–946. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2008.927665

    2008

  92. [101]

    Yao Wang, Zhu Liu, and Jin-Cheng Huang. 2000. Multimedia content analysis-using both audio and visual clues. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 17, 6 (2000), 12–36. https://doi.org/10.1109/79.888862

    2000 doi

  93. [102]

    David Watson, David Wiese, Jatin Vaidya, and Auke Tellegen. 1999. The two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76, 5 (1999), 820–838. https://doi.org/...

    1999 doi

  94. [103]

    Hanyu Xuan, Zhenyu Zhang, Shuo Chen, Jian Yang, and Yan Yan. 2020. Cross-modal attention network for temporal inconsistent audio-visual event localization. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence . AAAI Press, Palo Alto, California, USA, 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1609/...

    2020 doi

  95. [104]

    Hao Xue, Like Xue, and Feng Su. 2015. Multimodal music mood classification by fusion of audio and lyrics. InInternational Conference on Multimedia Modeling (MMM). Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14442-9_3

    2015 doi

  96. [105]

    Liang Yang, Zhexu Shen, Jingjie Zeng, Xi Luo, and Hongfei Lin. 2024. COSMIC: Music emotion recognition combining structure analysis and modal interaction. Multimedia Tools and Applications 83, 5 (2024), 12519–12534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-15376-z

    2024 doi

  97. [106]

    Qi Yang, Songhu Liu, and Tianzhuo Gong. 2025. Improve the application of reinforcement learning and multi-modal information in music sentiment analysis. Expert Systems 42, 1 (2025), e13416. https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.13416

    2025 doi

  98. [107]

    Yi-Hsuan Yang and Homer H. Chen. 2012. Machine recognition of music emotion: A review.ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 3, 3 (2012), 40. https://doi.org/10.1145/2168752.2168754

    2012

  99. [108]

    Yi-Hsuan Yang, Yu-Ching Lin, Heng-Tze Cheng, I-Bin Liao, Yeh-Chin Ho, and Homer H. Chen. 2008. Toward multi-modal music emotion classification. In Pacific-Rim Conference on Multimedia (PCM) . Springer, Berlin, Germany, 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89796-5_8

    2008 doi

  100. [109]

    Guanghao Yin, Shouqian Sun, Dian Yu, Dejian Li, and Kejun Zhang. 2022. A multimodal framework for large-scale emotion recognition by fusing music and electrodermal activity signals. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications 18, 3 (2022), 78. ht...

    2022 doi

  101. [110]

    Marcel Zentner, Didier Grandjean, and Klaus R Scherer. 2008. Emotions evoked by the sound of music: Characterization, classification, and measurement. Emotion 8, 4 (2008), 494. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.4.494 Manuscript 26 Rashini et al

    2008 doi

  102. [111]

    Kejun Zhang, Hui Zhang, Simeng Li, Changyuan Yang, and Lingyun Sun. 2018. The PMEmo dataset for music emotion recognition. InInternational Conference on Multimedia Retrieval (ICMR) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1145/32060...

    2018 doi

  103. [112]

    Lige Zhang and Zhen Tian. 2022. Research on music emotional expression based on reinforcement learning and multimodal information. Mobile Information Systems 2022, 1 (2022), 2616220. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2616220

    2022 doi

  104. [113]

    Meixian Zhang, Yonghua Zhu, Wenjun Zhang, Yunwen Zhu, and Tianyu Feng. 2022. Modularized composite attention network for continuous music emotion recognition. Multimedia Tools and Applications 82, 5 (2022), 7319–7341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-13577-6

    2022 doi

  105. [114]

    Shiqing Zhang, Shiliang Zhang, Tiejun Huang, Wen Gao, and Qi Tian. 2018. Learning affective features with a hybrid deep model for audio-visual emotion recognition. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 28, 10 (2018), 3030–3043. https://doi.org/10.1109/...

    2018 doi

  106. [115]

    Yong Zhang, Cheng Cheng, and Yidie Zhang. 2021. Multimodal emotion recognition using a hierarchical fusion convolutional neural network. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 7943–7951. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3049516

    2021

  107. [116]

    Zongmeng Zhang, Xianjing Han, Xuemeng Song, Yan Yan, and Liqiang Nie. 2021. Multi-modal interaction graph convolutional network for temporal language localization in videos. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 30 (2021), 8265–8277. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2021.3113791

    2021

  108. [117]

    Jiahao Zhao, Ganghui Ru, Yi Yu, Yulun Wu, Dichucheng Li, and Wei Li. 2022. Multimodal music emotion recognition with hierarchical cross-modal attention network. In IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) . IEEE, Taipei, Taiwan, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/...

    2022

  109. [118]

    Jiahao Zhao and Kazuyoshi Yoshii. 2023. Multimodal multifaceted music emotion recognition based on self-attentive fusion of psychology-inspired symbolic and acoustic features. In Asia Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference (APSIPA AS...

    2023

  110. [119]

    Jianchao Zhou, Xiaoou Chen, and Deshun Yang. 2019. Multimodel music emotion recognition using unsupervised deep neural networks. In Conference on Sound and Music Technology (CSMT) . Springer, Singapore, 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8707-4_3 Manuscript

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.