## Additional files

### Supplementary files

* Transparent reporting form

### Data availability

All data generated during this study have been deposited in the Open Science Framework (OSF) under DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/57H8M.

The following dataset was generated:

<table><thead><tr><td>Author(s)</td><td>Year</td><td>Dataset title</td><td>Dataset URL</td><td>Database and Identifier</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bioud E, Tasu C, Pessiglione M</td><td>2021</td><td>A computational account of why more valuable goals seem to require more effortful actions</td><td>https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/57H8M</td><td>Open Science Framework, 10.17605/OSF.IO/57H8M</td></tr></tbody></table>

## References

Arkes HR, Joyner CA, Pezzo MV, Nash JG, Siegel-Jacobs K, Stone E. 1994. The psychology of windfall gains. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes* **59**:331–347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1063

Aronson E, Mills J. 1959. The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. *The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology* **59**:177–181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047195

Benabou R, Tirole J. 2006. Belief in a just world and redistributive politics. *The Quarterly Journal of Economics* **121**:699–746. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.699

Białaszek W, Marcowski P, Ostaszewski P. 2017. Physical and cognitive effort discounting across different reward magnitudes: Tests of discounting models. *PLOS ONE* **12**:e0182353. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182353

Brunnermeier MK, Papakonstantinou F, Parker JA. 2008. An economic model of the planning fallacy (Working Paper no.14228). *National Bureau of Economic Research* **10**:w14228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w14228

Buehler R, Griffin D, Ross M. 1994. Exploring the "planning fallacy": Why people underestimate their task completion times. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology* **67**:366–381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366

Buehler R, Griffin D. 2003. Planning, personality, and prediction: The role of future focus in optimistic time predictions. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes* **92**:80–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00089-X

Chong TTJ, Apps M, Giehl K, Sillence A, Grima LL, Husain M. 2017. Neurocomputational mechanisms underlying subjective valuation of effort costs. *PLOS Biology* **15**:e1002598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002598, PMID: 28234892

Clore GL, Storbeck J. 2006. Affect as information about liking, efficacy, and importance. Clore GL (Ed). *Affect in Social Thinking and Behavior*. Psychology Press. p. 123–141.

Clore GL, Huntsinger JR. 2007. How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences* **11**:393–399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.005, PMID: 17698405

Croxson PL, Walton ME, O'Reilly JX, Behrens TEJ, Rushworth MFS. 2009. Effort-based cost-benefit valuation and the human brain. *The Journal of Neuroscience* **29**:4531–4541. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4515-08.2009, PMID: 19357278

Dam GL. 2017. People toss coins with more vigor when the stakes are higher. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

Daunizeau J, Adam V, Rigoux L. 2014. VBA: A probabilistic treatment of nonlinear models for neurobiological and behavioural data. *PLOS Computational Biology* **10**:e1003441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003441, PMID: 24465198

Eisenberger R. 1992. Learned industriousness. *Psychological Review* **99**:248–267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.99.2.248, PMID: 1594725

Friedman M, Savage LJ. 1952. The expected-utility hypothesis and the measurability of utility. *Journal of Political Economy* **60**:463–474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/257308

Frieze IH, Snyder HN. 1980. Children's beliefs about the causes of success and failure in school settings. *Journal of Educational Psychology* **72**:186–196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.72.2.186

Gellatly IR, Meyer JP. 1992. The effects of goal difficulty on physiological arousal, cognition, and task performance. *The Journal of Applied Psychology* **77**:694–704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.5.694, PMID: 1429347

Gingras B, Marin MM, Puig-Waldmüller E, Fitch WT. 2015. The eye is listening: Music-induced arousal and individual differences predict pupillary responses. *Frontiers in Human Neuroscience* **9**:619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00619, PMID: 26617511
Glimcher PW, Fehr E. 2013. Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain. Academic Press.

Gomez P, Danuser B. 2004. Affective and physiological responses to environmental noises and music. *International Journal of Psychophysiology* **53**:91–103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2004.02.002, PMID: 15210287

Gomez P, Danuser B. 2007. Relationships between musical structure and psychophysiological measures of emotion. *Emotion* **7**:377–387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.377, PMID: 17516815

Hall C, Figueroa A, Fernhall B, Kanaley JA. 2004. Energy expenditure of walking and running: comparison with prediction equations. *Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise* **36**:2128–2134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000147584.87788.0e, PMID: 15570150

Hartmann MN, Hager OM, Tobler PN, Kaiser S. 2013. Parabolic discounting of monetary rewards by physical effort. *Behavioural Processes* **100**:192–196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2013.09.014, PMID: 24140077

Hull CL. 1943. Principles of behavior: an introduction to behavior theory, Principles of behavior: an introduction to behavior theory. Oxford, England: Appleton-Century.

Inzlicht M, Shenhav A, Olivola CY. 2018. The effort paradox: effort is both costly and valued. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences* **22**:337–349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.007, PMID: 29477776

Kable JW, Glimcher PW. 2009. The neurobiology of decision: consensus and controversy. *Neuron* **63**:733–745. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.09.003, PMID: 19778504

Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Intuitive prediction: biases and corrective procedures. *TIMS Stud Manag Sci* **12**:44.

Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. *American Psychologist* **39**:341–350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341

Klein-Flügge MC, Kennerley SW, Saraiva AC, Penny WD, Bestmann S. 2015. Behavioral modeling of human choices reveals dissociable effects of physical effort and temporal delay on reward devaluation. *PLOS Computational Biology* **11**:e1004116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004116, PMID: 25816114

Kleiner M, Brainard D, Pelli D, Ingling A, Murray R, Broussard C. 2007. What's new in psychtoolbox-3. *Perception* **36**:1–16.

Knutson B, Greer SM. 2008. Anticipatory affect: neural correlates and consequences for choice. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences* **363**:3771–3786. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0155, PMID: 18829428

Kruger J, Evans M. 2004. If you don't want to be late, enumerate: Unpacking reduces the planning fallacy. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology* **40**:586–598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.001

Lewis M. 1965. Psychological effect of effort. *Psychological Bulletin* **64**:183–190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022224, PMID: 14343397

Mitchell SH. 2003. Discounting the Value of Commodities According to Different Types of CostChoice, *Behavioural Economics and Addiction*. Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044056-9/50053-1

Morgenshtern O, Raz T, Dvir D. 2007. Factors affecting duration and effort estimation errors in software development projects. *Information and Software Technology* **49**:827–837. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2006.09.006

Nalebuff BJ, Stiglitz JE. 1983. Prizes and incentives: towards a general theory of compensation and competition. *The Bell Journal of Economics* **14**:21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3003535

Norton MI, Mochon D, Ariely D. 2012. The IKEA effect: When labor leads to love. *Journal of Consumer Psychology* **22**:453–460. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.002

Oudiette D, Vinckier F, Bioud E, Pessiglione M. 2019. A Pavlovian account for paradoxical effects of motivation on controlling response vigour. *Scientific Reports* **9**:7607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43936-7, PMID: 31110301

Peetz J, Buehler R. 2009. Is there a budget fallacy? The role of savings goals in the prediction of personal spending. *Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin* **35**:1579–1591. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209345160, PMID: 19713568

Peetz J, Buehler R. 2013. Different goals, different predictions: Accuracy and bias in financial planning for events and time periods. *Journal of Applied Social Psychology* **43**:1079–1088. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12072

Pessiglione M, Vinckier F, Bouret S, Daunizeau J, Le Bouc R. 2018. Why not try harder? Computational approach to motivation deficits in neuro-psychiatric diseases. *Brain* **141**:629–650. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awx278, PMID: 29194534

Pooresmaeili A, Wannig A, Dolan RJ. 2015. Receipt of reward leads to altered estimation of effort. *PNAS* **112**:13407–13410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1507527112, PMID: 26460026

Posner J, Russell JA, Peterson BS. 2005. The circumplex model of affect: an integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. *Development and Psychopathology* **17**:715–734. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050340, PMID: 16262989

Rangel A, Camerer C, Montague PR. 2008. A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision making. *Nature Reviews. Neuroscience* **9**:545–556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2357, PMID: 18545266

Rigoux L, Stephan KE, Friston KJ, Daunizeau J. 2014. Bayesian model selection for group studies - revisited. *NeuroImage* **84**:971–985. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.065, PMID: 24018303

Rollwage M, Pannach F, Stinson C, Toelch U, Kagan I, Pooresmaeili A. 2018. I Judge You by Your Profit: Judgments of Effort Exerted by Self and Others Are Influenced by Received Rewards. *bioRxiv*. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/253138
Glimcher PW, Fehr E. 2013. Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain. Academic Press.

Gomez P, Danuser B. 2004. Affective and physiological responses to environmental noises and music. *International Journal of Psychophysiology* **53**:91–103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2004.02.002, PMID: 15210287

Gomez P, Danuser B. 2007. Relationships between musical structure and psychophysiological measures of emotion. *Emotion* **7**:377–387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.377, PMID: 17516815

Hall C, Figueroa A, Fernhall B, Kanaley JA. 2004. Energy expenditure of walking and running: comparison with prediction equations. *Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise* **36**:2128–2134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000147584.87788.0e, PMID: 15570150

Hartmann MN, Hager OM, Tobler PN, Kaiser S. 2013. Parabolic discounting of monetary rewards by physical effort. *Behavioural Processes* **100**:192–196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2013.09.014, PMID: 24140077

Hull CL. 1943. Principles of behavior: an introduction to behavior theory, Principles of behavior: an introduction to behavior theory. Oxford, England: Appleton-Century.

Inzlicht M, Shenhav A, Olivola CY. 2018. The effort paradox: effort is both costly and valued. *Trends in Cognitive Sciences* **22**:337–349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.007, PMID: 29477776

Kable JW, Glimcher PW. 2009. The neurobiology of decision: consensus and controversy. *Neuron* **63**:733–745. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.09.003, PMID: 19778504

Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Intuitive prediction: biases and corrective procedures. *TIMS Stud Manag Sci* **12**:44.

Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. *American Psychologist* **39**:341–350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341

Klein-Flügge MC, Kennerley SW, Saraiva AC, Penny WD, Bestmann S. 2015. Behavioral modeling of human choices reveals dissociable effects of physical effort and temporal delay on reward devaluation. *PLOS Computational Biology* **11**:e1004116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004116, PMID: 25816114

Kleiner M, Brainard D, Pelli D, Ingling A, Murray R, Broussard C. 2007. What's new in psychtoolbox-3. *Perception* **36**:1–16.

Knutson B, Greer SM. 2008. Anticipatory affect: neural correlates and consequences for choice. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences* **363**:3771–3786. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0155, PMID: 18829428

Kruger J, Evans M. 2004. If you don't want to be late, enumerate: Unpacking reduces the planning fallacy. *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology* **40**:586–598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.001

Lewis M. 1965. Psychological effect of effort. *Psychological Bulletin* **64**:183–190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022224, PMID: 14343397

Mitchell SH. 2003. Discounting the Value of Commodities According to Different Types of CostChoice, *Behavioural Economics and Addiction*. Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044056-9/50053-1

Morgenshtern O, Raz T, Dvir D. 2007. Factors affecting duration and effort estimation errors in software development projects. *Information and Software Technology* **49**:827–837. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2006.09.006

Nalebuff BJ, Stiglitz JE. 1983. Prizes and incentives: towards a general theory of compensation and competition. *The Bell Journal of Economics* **14**:21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3003535

Norton MI, Mochon D, Ariely D. 2012. The IKEA effect: When labor leads to love. *Journal of Consumer Psychology* **22**:453–460. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.002

Oudiette D, Vinckier F, Bioud E, Pessiglione M. 2019. A Pavlovian account for paradoxical effects of motivation on controlling response vigour. *Scientific Reports* **9**:7607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43936-7, PMID: 31110301

Peetz J, Buehler R. 2009. Is there a budget fallacy? The role of savings goals in the prediction of personal spending. *Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin* **35**:1579–1591. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209345160, PMID: 19713568

Peetz J, Buehler R. 2013. Different goals, different predictions: Accuracy and bias in financial planning for events and time periods. *Journal of Applied Social Psychology* **43**:1079–1088. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12072

Pessiglione M, Vinckier F, Bouret S, Daunizeau J, Le Bouc R. 2018. Why not try harder? Computational approach to motivation deficits in neuro-psychiatric diseases. *Brain* **141**:629–650. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awx278, PMID: 29194534

Pooresmaeili A, Wannig A, Dolan RJ. 2015. Receipt of reward leads to altered estimation of effort. *PNAS* **112**:13407–13410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1507527112, PMID: 26460026

Posner J, Russell JA, Peterson BS. 2005. The circumplex model of affect: an integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. *Development and Psychopathology* **17**:715–734. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050340, PMID: 16262989

Rangel A, Camerer C, Montague PR. 2008. A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision making. *Nature Reviews. Neuroscience* **9**:545–556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2357, PMID: 18545266

Rigoux L, Stephan KE, Friston KJ, Daunizeau J. 2014. Bayesian model selection for group studies - revisited. *NeuroImage* **84**:971–985. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.065, PMID: 24018303

Rollwage M, Pannach F, Stinson C, Toelch U, Kagan I, Pooresmaeili A. 2018. I Judge You by Your Profit: Judgments of Effort Exerted by Self and Others Are Influenced by Received Rewards. *bioRxiv*. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/253138
Russell JA. 1980. A circumplex model of affect. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology* **39**:1161-1178.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714

Schmidt L, Cléry-Melin ML, Lafargue G, Valabrègue R, Fossati P, Dubois B, Pessiglione M. 2009. Get aroused and be stronger: emotional facilitation of physical effort in the human brain. *The Journal of Neuroscience* **29**:9450-9457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1951-09.2009, PMID: 19641108

Schmidt L, Lebreton M, Cléry-Melin ML, Daunizeau J, Pessiglione M. 2012. Neural mechanisms underlying motivation of mental versus physical effort. *PLOS Biology* **10**:e1001266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001266, PMID: 22363208

Schoemaker PJH. 1982. The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. *Journal of Economic Literature* **20**:529-563.

Schwarz N. 2012. Feelings-as-Information Theory. Schwarz N (Ed). *Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology*. SAGE Publications Ltd. p. 289-308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n15

Shenhav A, Botvinick MM, Cohen JD. 2013. The expected value of control: an integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. *Neuron* **79**:217-240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.007, PMID: 23889930

Storbeck J, Clore GL. 2008. Affective arousal as information: how affective arousal influences judgments, learning, and memory. *Social and Personality Psychology Compass* **2**:1824-1843. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00138.x, PMID: 25067943

Tom SM, Fox CR, Trepel C, Poldrack RA. 2007. The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. *Science* **315**:515-518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134239, PMID: 17255512

Van-Yperen NW, Duda JL. 2007. Goal orientations, beliefs about success, and performance improvement among young elite Dutch soccer players. *Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports* **9**:358-364. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.1999.tb00257.x

Varazzani C, San-Galli A, Gilardeau S, Bouret S. 2015. Noradrenaline and dopamine neurons in the reward/effort trade-off: A direct electrophysiological comparison in behaving monkeys. *The Journal of Neuroscience* **35**:7866-7877. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0454-15.2015, PMID: 25995472

Vassena E, Silvetti M, Boehler CN, Achten E, Fias W, Verguts T. 2014. Overlapping neural systems represent cognitive effort and reward anticipation. *PLOS ONE* **9**:e91008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091008, PMID: 24608867

Wu CC, Samanez-Larkin GR, Katovich K, Knutson B. 2014. Affective traits link to reliable neural markers of incentive anticipation. *NeuroImage* **84**:279-289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.055, PMID: 24001457
Russell JA. 1980. A circumplex model of affect. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology* **39**:1161-1178.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714

Schmidt L, Cléry-Melin ML, Lafargue G, Valabrègue R, Fossati P, Dubois B, Pessiglione M. 2009. Get aroused and be stronger: emotional facilitation of physical effort in the human brain. *The Journal of Neuroscience* **29**:9450-9457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1951-09.2009, PMID: 19641108

Schmidt L, Lebreton M, Cléry-Melin ML, Daunizeau J, Pessiglione M. 2012. Neural mechanisms underlying motivation of mental versus physical effort. *PLOS Biology* **10**:e1001266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001266, PMID: 22363208

Schoemaker PJH. 1982. The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. *Journal of Economic Literature* **20**:529-563.

Schwarz N. 2012. Feelings-as-Information Theory. Schwarz N (Ed). *Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology*. SAGE Publications Ltd. p. 289-308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n15

Shenhav A, Botvinick MM, Cohen JD. 2013. The expected value of control: an integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. *Neuron* **79**:217-240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.007, PMID: 23889930

Storbeck J, Clore GL. 2008. Affective arousal as information: how affective arousal influences judgments, learning, and memory. *Social and Personality Psychology Compass* **2**:1824-1843. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00138.x, PMID: 25067943

Tom SM, Fox CR, Trepel C, Poldrack RA. 2007. The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. *Science* **315**:515-518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134239, PMID: 17255512

Van-Yperen NW, Duda JL. 2007. Goal orientations, beliefs about success, and performance improvement among young elite Dutch soccer players. *Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports* **9**:358-364. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.1999.tb00257.x

Varazzani C, San-Galli A, Gilardeau S, Bouret S. 2015. Noradrenaline and dopamine neurons in the reward/effort trade-off: A direct electrophysiological comparison in behaving monkeys. *The Journal of Neuroscience* **35**:7866-7877. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0454-15.2015, PMID: 25995472

Vassena E, Silvetti M, Boehler CN, Achten E, Fias W, Verguts T. 2014. Overlapping neural systems represent cognitive effort and reward anticipation. *PLOS ONE* **9**:e91008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091008, PMID: 24608867

Wu CC, Samanez-Larkin GR, Katovich K, Knutson B. 2014. Affective traits link to reliable neural markers of incentive anticipation. *NeuroImage* **84**:279-289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.055, PMID: 24001457
Appendix 1

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Appendix 1—figure 1.** Distribution of arousal ratings in experiment 2. Histogram plot, left y-axis: distributions of arousal ratings made about 72 musical extracts (ratings normalized to [0; 1]) overlaid across all subjects. Grey shade indicates the number of subjects who reached a given count (or above) for each given rating bin. Purple area delineates the group-averaged distribution. Whisker plots, right y-axis: all ratings and summary statistics of each subject. Each dot represents a rating, main vertical grey bar is the median, left and right ends of boxplot are first and third quartile of the distribution, respectively.</figcaption></figure>
Appendix 1

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Appendix 1—figure 1.** Distribution of arousal ratings in experiment 2. Histogram plot, left y-axis: distributions of arousal ratings made about 72 musical extracts (ratings normalized to [0; 1]) overlaid across all subjects. Grey shade indicates the number of subjects who reached a given count (or above) for each given rating bin. Purple area delineates the group-averaged distribution. Whisker plots, right y-axis: all ratings and summary statistics of each subject. Each dot represents a rating, main vertical grey bar is the median, left and right ends of boxplot are first and third quartile of the distribution, respectively.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

**Appendix 1—figure 2.** Pupil diameter during arousal rating task in experiment 2. Pupil diameter as a function of elapsed time since the onset of each musical extract. Time courses were median-split between trials in which a high versus low arousal rating was given. Solid lines represent time courses averaged across corresponding trials and all experiment 2 subjects. Shaded area around each curve represents the standard error to the mean (s.e.m), computed across subjects. Vertical grey area highlights the time window during which pupil diameter was larger for high-arousal extracts (time window: [1.67–2.55] s post music onset, $p = 3 \cdot 10^{-4}$, corrected for multiple comparisons). Left and right vertical dotted lines indicate music onset and rating onset, respectively.
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

**Appendix 1—figure 2.** Pupil diameter during arousal rating task in experiment 2. Pupil diameter as a function of elapsed time since the onset of each musical extract. Time courses were median-split between trials in which a high versus low arousal rating was given. Solid lines represent time courses averaged across corresponding trials and all experiment 2 subjects. Shaded area around each curve represents the standard error to the mean (s.e.m), computed across subjects. Vertical grey area highlights the time window during which pupil diameter was larger for high-arousal extracts (time window: [1.67–2.55] s post music onset, $p = 3 \cdot 10^{-4}$, corrected for multiple comparisons). Left and right vertical dotted lines indicate music onset and rating onset, respectively.