Heart Rate During the Mock Audition

performance-anxiety
heart-rate
descriptive
MFA-2026
Author

Brianna Meikle

Published

February 28, 2026

This analysis presents the heart rate data from five mock audition sessions. Each singer performed two songs — one prepared, one assigned 24 hours in advance — for a three-person faculty panel. All subjects wore Polar H10 heart rate monitors. HR was recorded at 1 Hz (one value per second) and aligned to audio using a clap-based sync point.

Participants:

Assigned pieces: Female singers (S2, S3, S4): “If You Knew My Story” | Male singers (S1, S5): “Shiksa Goddess”

Data constraint: HR was exported from Polar Flow at 1 Hz — averaged BPM per second, not beat-to-beat RR intervals. Standard HRV metrics cannot be computed. Analysis focuses on HR magnitude, reactivity, and interpersonal synchrony.

Methodological notes: - All faculty panelists were seated throughout all auditions. No standing, walking, or postural changes occurred. All panelist HR variations reflect genuine autonomic responses, not movement artifacts. - Panelist 1 wore a facial mask for the duration of the experiment to avoid sharing or receiving illness. This may have contributed slightly to Panelist 1’s elevated baseline HR (~100 bpm), though the consistency across all five sessions suggests a stable individual difference rather than a masking artifact.

Part 1: Individual Session Time Series

Each figure shows one audition session with the singer’s HR (red) overlaid with Panelist 1 (purple), Panelist 2 (green), and Panelist 3 (blue). Shaded bands indicate audition phases.

Panelist baseline context: The three panelists — all seated throughout — show a stable hierarchy across all sessions: Panelist 1 runs highest (~98013108 bpm), Panelist 3 is moderate (~7501395 bpm), and Panelist 2 is lowest (~5501365 bpm). Panelist 2’s HR is essentially resting heart rate for a seated adult. These individual differences in resting autonomic tone are consistent across all five sessions, suggesting stable trait-level variation rather than differential responses to specific singers.

Session 1 014 Singer 1 (M)

Singer 1 begins around 127 bpm and ramps steadily upward through song 1 (prepared piece), reaching peaks near 160 bpm. There is a brief dip during the inter-song gap, followed by a sharp rise into song 2 (assigned piece), where HR reaches its highest sustained values (~155013158 bpm). The three panelists hold flat: Panelist 1 around 100013108 bpm, Panelist 3 at 8501395 bpm, and Panelist 2 near 58 bpm. The singer’s activation gap above the panelist mean is ~6001370 bpm during performance.

Session 2 014 Singer 2 (F)

Singer 2 shows the steepest ramp-up of any singer 014 HR climbs from ~120 bpm at the start to peak near 169 bpm during song 1 (prepared). HR drops modestly during the inter-song gap (~145 bpm) but rebounds during song 2 (assigned), reaching ~155 bpm. Panelist 1 drifts from 108 down to ~100 bpm; Panelist 3 hovers in the 7501390 bpm range; Panelist 2 holds steady near 57 bpm. The activation gap widens as the session progresses.

Session 3 014 Singer 3 (F)

Singer 3 follows a similar arc to Singer 2 014 gradual climb through the pre-singing phase, sustained elevation during song 1 (135013165 bpm), partial recovery in the gap, and a plateau during song 2 (~150013158 bpm). Panelist 1 is steady around 101013107 bpm; Panelist 3 is at 8001395 bpm; Panelist 2 stays near 5801360 bpm. The inter-song gap shows a brief but noticeable HR spike in Panelist 3’s trace 014 likely anticipatory activation as the panelist prepares for the next performance (see Panelist Anticipatory Activation below).

Session 4 014 Singer 4 (F)

Singer 4 is a clear outlier. HR starts around 8001390 bpm in the pre-singing phase 014 within the range typically seen in a panelist, not a singer. During song 1, HR rises modestly to ~105013120 bpm, well below the 140013170 bpm range seen in other singers. During song 2, HR actually drops below baseline, reaching the mid-70s. This is the most visually striking session in the dataset: the singer’s trace overlaps with Panelist 1 and Panelist 3, while Panelist 2 runs below all of them. Panelist 1 spikes to ~113 bpm during the inter-song gap 014 the highest F1 variability in any session (sd=5.8). Panelist 3 is similarly variable (sd=8.1 during the gap).

Important context: Panelist 3 had a pre-existing teaching relationship with Singer 4. This likely explains the reduced anxiety response.

Session 5 014 Singer 5 (M)

Singer 5 shows the highest sustained HR of any participant. Starting from a pre-singing baseline of ~135013140 bpm (already elevated), HR climbs rapidly through song 1 to peaks near 184 bpm. The inter-song gap provides minimal recovery (~165 bpm), and song 2 drives HR to its highest sustained values (~170013180 bpm). The three panelists form a clear floor: Panelist 1 at 96013106 bpm, Panelist 3 at 7301385 bpm, Panelist 2 at 5401359 bpm. The widest activation gap in the study occurs here 014 ~91 bpm between singer and the 3-panelist mean during song 2.

Part 2: Cross-Session Comparisons

Singer HR by Audition Phase

The grouped bar chart below shows each singer’s mean HR (with standard deviation bars) during the four performance phases. The pattern is consistent across four of five singers: HR is lowest during pre-singing, rises sharply for song 1, dips slightly during the inter-song gap, and remains elevated or continues rising into song 2. Singer 4 is the exception 014 her HR stays in the 88013106 bpm range across all phases, never approaching the 140+ bpm levels seen in the others.

Key observation: Pre-singing baseline HR is remarkably similar across Singers 1, 2, 3, and 5 (~126013143 bpm), suggesting comparable levels of anticipatory anxiety before singing begins. Singer 4’s pre-singing HR (~91 bpm) is 3501350 bpm lower than the group.

Singer013Panelist Activation Gap

The chart below quantifies the HR difference between each singer and the mean of all three panelists for each phase. The gap reflects how far the singer’s autonomic activation exceeds the panelists’ 014 a rough index of the anxiety asymmetry in the audition relationship. With Panelist 2 included (mean HR ~58 bpm, seated), the 3-panelist average is lower than the earlier 2-panelist estimate, so activation gaps are wider.

Singers 1, 2, 3, and 5 show gaps of 3801391 bpm, widening as the session progresses. The gap is largest during the inter-song gap and song 2 for most singers 014 suggesting that the stress of performing the assigned piece (less familiar, less rehearsed) compounds the already elevated state from song 1.

Singer 4’s gap is small but positive (+8 bpm during song 2) 014 her HR stays close to the panelist range. This is the only singer whose physiological state approximates the panelists’.

HR Reactivity Profiles

The dot-and-line plot below connects each singer’s mean HR across the four phases, making the shape of each stress response visible.

Four distinct profiles emerge:

  • Singer 5 014 highest absolute HR, steep climb, no recovery between songs. The most pronounced stress response in the study.
  • Singer 2 014 steep initial climb during song 1, partial recovery in the gap, rebound for song 2. Classic performance anxiety arc.
  • Singers 1 and 3 014 moderate, steady climb. Singer 1 shows the most gradual escalation; Singer 3 plateaus earlier.
  • Singer 4 014 flat trajectory near 90 bpm. Modest rise during song 1, return to baseline for song 2. This profile resembles a panelist more than a performer.

Normalized HR Trajectories

All five singers’ HR traces plotted on a common timeline, each zeroed to their own pre-singing baseline mean. This removes differences in resting HR and shows the magnitude of change from baseline.

With a 10-second rolling average for readability:

  • Singers 2 and 5 show the largest sustained elevations (~2501340 bpm above baseline).
  • Singer 1 shows a moderate, steady rise (~1501330 bpm above baseline).
  • Singer 3 shows a moderate rise with more variability.
  • Singer 4 shows the smallest reactivity 014 peaking around +15 bpm during song 1, then dropping below baseline during song 2.

Part 3: Same-Song Comparisons

Because the assigned piece was the same within each gender group, we can compare singers’ HR during the identical musical material. Any differences in HR trajectory during the same song reflect individual anxiety responses rather than differences in musical demands.

Female Singers 014 "If You Knew My Story"

During the assigned piece (right panel) 014 the same 32-bar cut 014 Singers 2 and 3 track closely in the 140013155 bpm range with similar contour, while Singer 4 starts at ~80 bpm and rises slowly to ~99 bpm. The separation between Singer 4 and the other two is even more striking here than during the prepared pieces, because the musical demands are identical.

Each female singer during "If You Knew My Story" with all three panelists overlaid:

  • Singer 2: Sustained at 140013155 bpm. All three panelists hold flat below, with Panelist 2 running lowest (~57 bpm). The singer sits 4001380+ bpm above the panelist range.
  • Singer 3: Similar profile to Singer 2. Panelist traces are stable and well below.
  • Singer 4: Starts at ~80 bpm 014 below Panelist 1 (~98 bpm) and near Panelist 3 (~92 bpm). Only Panelist 2 (~56 bpm) is consistently below her. This is the only session where the singer’s HR is intertwined with the panelists’ during active singing.

Male Singers 014 "Shiksa Goddess"

During the assigned piece (right panel), Singer 5 starts at ~166 bpm and climbs to ~180 bpm. Singer 1 starts at ~149 bpm and rises gently to ~158 bpm. The ~1501320 bpm gap between them is consistent, suggesting a stable difference in stress reactivity rather than a response to a specific musical moment.

Each male singer during "Shiksa Goddess" with all three panelists:

  • Singer 1: Flat trace at ~150013158 bpm. All three panelists well below. The gap between singer and 3-panelist mean (~70 bpm) is stable throughout.
  • Singer 5: Climbing trace from ~166 to ~180 bpm. The gap widens over the course of the song 014 panelists hold flat or decrease while Singer 5 continues climbing. Panelist 3 shows the clearest antiphase pattern (HR decreasing as singer’s increases).

Part 4: Interpretive Notes

The Singer 4 013 Panelist 3 Relationship

Singer 4 is a student of Panelist 3 014 they have a pre-existing teacher-student relationship. This is an important interpretive lens for several findings:

  1. Singer 4’s low HR is consistent with reduced evaluative threat. Performing for one’s own teacher 014 someone who knows your voice, has heard you at your worst, and is invested in your success 014 may reduce the sense that resources are insufficient to meet demands (the "threat" state in the biopsychosocial model; Guyon et al., 2020).

  2. The HR convergence between Singer 4 and Panelist 3 is consistent with what Coutinho et al. (2021) describe in established relationships. In their study of romantic couples, partners in close relationships showed distinctive physiological synchrony patterns 014 including in-phase HR coupling. While Singer 4 and Panelist 3 are not romantic partners, the teacher-student bond represents the closest interpersonal relationship of any singer-panelist dyad in this study, and it produces the most convergent physiological profile.

  3. All three panelists show elevated variability during Singer 4’s session. Panelist 3’s HR is the most variable of any session (sd=8.1 during the inter-song gap). Panelist 1 also shows its highest variability here (sd=5.8, spiking to ~113 bpm). Even Panelist 2, typically the most stable, shows slightly more variation. This suggests Session 4 was physiologically distinctive for the entire panel.

For the thesis: This dyad should be discussed as both a limitation (the teacher-student relationship is a confound that makes Singer 4’s data non-equivalent to the other singers in terms of evaluative stress) and as a case study in co-regulation (the strongest evidence of physiological coupling in the dataset occurs in the dyad with the deepest relational history).

Anticipatory Anxiety

Four of five singers show pre-singing HR values of 126013143 bpm 014 substantially elevated above typical resting heart rate (6001380 bpm for young adults). This is consistent with Vellers et al. (2017), who identified the pre-performance anticipatory period as the most sensitive window for detecting audition stress. The singers are already in a state of sympathetic activation before they begin singing. Singer 4, again, is the exception at ~91 bpm.

Panelist Anticipatory Activation

The singer anticipatory anxiety finding has a counterpart on the panelist side. All three panelists 014 seated throughout 014 show HR ramp-ups in the final seconds of the inter-song gap before song 2 begins. Because the panelists did not stand, shift position, or move during the auditions, these HR changes cannot be attributed to postural artifacts. They reflect genuine autonomic activation 014 the evaluative experience of preparing to hear the next piece.

Panelist 3 shows the most consistent pattern (anticipatory activation in 4 of 5 sessions), with Session 4 (her own student) producing the largest ramp (+17.7 bpm). Panelist 1 shows activation in 3 of 5 sessions. Panelist 2, with the lowest overall HR, shows modest changes that are harder to distinguish from baseline fluctuation.

Prepared vs. Assigned Song

The data does not show a simple pattern of "assigned piece = more anxiety." Some singers (1, 3, 5) show higher HR during song 2 (assigned), but Singer 2 shows lower HR during song 2 than song 1. This may reflect:

  • Fatigue or habituation (HR naturally declining after sustained high effort)
  • The assigned piece being shorter and less demanding than some prepared pieces
  • Individual differences in how novelty vs. familiarity affects stress

The comparison is also confounded by order 014 song 2 always follows song 1, so any "assigned piece" effect is inseparable from a "second performance" effect. This should be acknowledged as a design limitation.

K-MPAI and MAAQ Pre-Survey Results

The K-MPAI was administered to all BoCo BFA/MM voice students as a pre-screening survey. The 5 study participants were drawn from this broader pool of 26 respondents. Scoring follows Kenny (2009): 40 items on a 00136 scale with 8 reverse-coded positive items (1, 2, 9, 17, 23, 33, 35, 37), range 0013240, clinical threshold 265105.

Population (26 BoCo singer respondents):

  • Mean K-MPAI: 124.1 (SD 31.6), Median: 124.0, Range: 64013185
  • 73% (19/26) score 265105 (clinically significant MPA)
  • This is a high-anxiety population, consistent with conservatory performance culture

Study participants:

Singer K-MPAI Clinical? MAAQ Flexibility Notes
S1 (M) 126 Yes 31 Near population mean
S2 (F) 111 Yes 35 (highest) Lowest anxiety, highest flexibility
S3 (F) 144 Yes 26 Above population mean
S4 (F) 159 Yes 21 High anxiety despite lowest HR
S5 (M) 174 Yes 17 (lowest) Highest anxiety, lowest flexibility

All 5 singers score above the clinical threshold 014 not surprising given they self-selected for a study on performance anxiety. The rank ordering is notable: Singer 5 (highest K-MPAI, 174) also shows the highest sustained HR in the study, while Singer 2 (lowest K-MPAI, 111) shows the steepest HR ramp-up but also the most recovery between songs. Singer 4 (K-MPAI 159 014 second highest) is the most interesting case: high self-reported anxiety with the lowest physiological response, suggesting that the teacher-student relationship with Panelist 3 may buffer the somatic expression of trait anxiety.

Faculty panelists:

Panelist K-MPAI Clinical? MAAQ Flexibility Mean HR (seated)
Panelist 1 109 (2 items missing) Yes 24 ~101 bpm
Panelist 2 102 No 33 ~58 bpm
Panelist 3 169 Yes 32 ~85 bpm

Panelist 3’s K-MPAI (169) is notably high 014 higher than any study participant except Singer 5. For a panelist whose own performance anxiety is elevated, evaluating singers (especially her own student, Singer 4) may carry additional physiological weight. Panelist 2 falls just below the clinical threshold at 102 and shows the lowest HR of anyone in the study 014 essentially resting heart rate while seated. The K-MPAI ranking on the faculty side (F3 > F1 > F2) does not map directly to their HR ranking (F1 > F3 > F2), but Panelist 2 being the calmest on both measures is consistent.

K-MPAI Scoring Note

The Qualtrics-generated SC0 score differs from our computed score by a constant of +40 across all 26 respondents (verified: identical SDs, perfect rank correlation). Qualtrics scores the K-MPAI on a 10137 internal scale, while Kenny (2009) specifies 00136. Both apply the same reverse coding on the same 8 items 014 the only difference is a +1 shift per item across all 40 items (40 0d7 1 = 40). We use the published 00136 convention. The Qualtrics threshold equivalent of 265105 is 265145.

Summary

Singer Pre-Singing HR Song 1 HR Song 2 HR Reactivity (Song 1 212 Baseline) Activation Gap (Song 2) K-MPAI Notes
S1 (M) 128 144 154 +16 +70 126 Steady climber; flattest assigned-song trace
S2 (F) 128 160 147 +32 +66 111 Steepest ramp-up; HR drops for song 2
S3 (F) 126 150 152 +24 +70 144 Moderate, steady; similar to S2 during assigned song
S4 (F) 91 106 90 +15 +8 159 Outlier 014 pre-existing relationship with F3; HR near panelist range
S5 (M) 143 167 170 +24 +91 174 Highest absolute HR; no recovery between songs

All values are mean HR in bpm. Activation gap = singer mean HR minus mean of all three panelists during song 2.

Data Pending

  • Post-survey 0d7 HR correlation 014 the processed post-survey data has not yet been correlated with HR measures.
  • K-MPAI 0d7 HR correlation 014 the association between trait anxiety scores and physiological reactivity is ready to be tested.