TABLE 3.

Results of linear regressions between Exp. 1 and Exp. 2 rating data.

	NH-only			CI-only			NH + CI
Subject	Slope	r	p	Slope	r	p	Slope	r	p
C1	0.98	0.99	< 0.001∗	1.71	0.93	< 0.001∗	0.96	0.99	< 0.001∗
M2	0.01	0.05	0.899	0.36	0.16	0.708	0.04	0.42	0.303
M3	0.81	0.95	< 0.001∗	0.15	0.57	0.137	0.62	0.97	< 0.001∗
M4	0.70	0.84	0.008∗	–0.02	0.07	0.864	1.03	0.97	< 0.001∗
M5	1.02	0.96	< 0.001∗	–0.09	0.22	0.595	0.90	0.83	0.011∗
N6	0.97	0.98	< 0.001∗	0.97	0.99	< 0.001∗	1.05	0.99	< 0.001∗
N7	0.10	0.77	0.025∗	0.57	0.81	0.014∗	0.29	0.92	0.001∗
N8	0.86	0.99	< 0.001∗	0.71	0.84	0.010∗	0.92	0.99	< 0.001∗
N9	0.97	0.92	0.001∗	0.56	0.88	0.004∗	1.37	0.85	0.007∗
N10	0.95	0.99	< 0.001∗	0.56	0.86	0.006∗	0.99	0.99	< 0.001∗
N11	0.85	0.99	< 0.001∗	0.38	0.91	0.002∗	0.86	0.98	< 0.001∗

Pleasantness ratings for the four lowest rated and four highest rated stimuli (across root notes and interval spans) in Exp. 1 were re-measured in Exp. 2. Linear regressions were fit to these data for each participant. The asterisks indicate significant correlations between Exp. 1 and Exp. 2 data. The shaded cells indicate instances where participants were unable to replicate the data from Exp. 1.