Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Co-operative Tapping:  Musical and Social Interaction  Tommi Himberg Finnish Centre of Excellence in  Interdisciplinary Mu...
Plan <ul><li>Co-operative Tapping </li></ul><ul><ul><li>methods and measures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>some results </li>...
Co-operative tapping Experimenter Communication channels Co-operation Stimuli Stimuli Task Role Intention Task Role Intent...
Co-operative Tapping <ul><li>tasks:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>synchronisation - continuation - mixed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><...
Co-op Tap : Measures <ul><li>Analysis: MIDI ToolBox + Tapping ToolKit </li></ul><ul><li>Individual stability / variability...
Circular measures T can be set locally or globally
Rose histogram
Windowing / cross-correlation <ul><li>Cross-correlation would indicate who is leading and who is lagging </li></ul><ul><li...
 
Assorted results <ul><li>synchronising with shared metronome: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>metronome and partner in competition <...
Synchronisation vs. syncopation
Results: sensory domains <ul><li>constant finding: “auditory only” best for accuracy (ind & coord), “visual only” worst </...
Results: human vs. computer <ul><li>12 musicians  28.6 y.o.a (range 21-41), 13.75 yrs FMT (range 4-23) </li></ul><ul><li>s...
Trials 1 2 P
Trials 1  2
Results - stability F = 4.241 df=5, p=.003
Results - asynchrony F = 4.072, df=5, p= 0.008
Results <ul><li>Some people very good at distinguishing between human and computer tappers </li></ul><ul><li>in average, s...
Conclusions <ul><li>Co-operative tapping links what we know very well (SMS) with what we know too little about (social int...
Why personality? <ul><li>Personality - individual differences (people differ from each other in systematic ways) </li></ul...
Social influence: Asch & Berns <ul><li>Triplett (1898) </li></ul><ul><li>Asch (1951,1952) </li></ul><ul><li>social influen...
Personality - measures <ul><li>Pen & Paper, quick to fill, easy to score </li></ul><ul><li>Big Five Inventory, BFI  (John ...
“Pilot study” 1 <ul><li>Assertiveness (SIB) and coordination  </li></ul><ul><li>small sample (7 pairs), random pairing </l...
Pilot study 2 <ul><li>Personality type (BFI) and individual tapping performance </li></ul><ul><li>Baseline: individual dif...
Plan <ul><li>Stage 1: Individual tapping test + SIB & BFI </li></ul><ul><li>Stage 2: Co-operative tapping tasks, paired ac...
Thank you!  <ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>mindsync.wordpress.com </li></ul>xkcd.com
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig

901 views

Published on

These are the slides for my presentation in the "Rhythmic Coordination in Dyads" symposium, organised in the MPI in Leipzig on May 5 2008.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig

  1. 1. Co-operative Tapping: Musical and Social Interaction Tommi Himberg Finnish Centre of Excellence in Interdisciplinary Music Research Department of Music, University of Jyväskylä
  2. 2. Plan <ul><li>Co-operative Tapping </li></ul><ul><ul><li>methods and measures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>some results </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>phase stability </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>communication channels </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>comparison of human & computer partners </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Musical / social interaction? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Co-operative tapping and personality (planned) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Motivation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Linked / “pilot” studies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Plans </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Co-operative tapping Experimenter Communication channels Co-operation Stimuli Stimuli Task Role Intention Task Role Intention 1 2
  4. 4. Co-operative Tapping <ul><li>tasks: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>synchronisation - continuation - mixed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>synchro - syncopation - rhythm - turn-taking </li></ul></ul><ul><li>conditions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>auditory - visual - both </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>interaction: actual - delayed - faked - (simulated) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>different tempi </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>instructions / motivations ?? </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Co-op Tap : Measures <ul><li>Analysis: MIDI ToolBox + Tapping ToolKit </li></ul><ul><li>Individual stability / variability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>unproblematic (same as individual tapping tasks) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>local variability (Madison 1999) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Circular measures (can deal with varying phase relations, matching, less sensitive to missing taps etc.) (Fisher 1993) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>R (mean resultant length) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Coordination (mutual adaptation) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>asynchrony of parts (Rasch 1982) (STD of unsigned asynchr.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>angle difference / variance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>windowed cross-correlation </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Circular measures T can be set locally or globally
  7. 7. Rose histogram
  8. 8. Windowing / cross-correlation <ul><li>Cross-correlation would indicate who is leading and who is lagging </li></ul><ul><li>Usually flat profiles for trials (or equal lag 1 and lag -1) </li></ul><ul><li>--> “leadership” not a static property, but fluctuates over time (due to automatic error correction) </li></ul><ul><li>solution: calculate CC in a moving window </li></ul>
  9. 10. Assorted results <ul><li>synchronising with shared metronome: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>metronome and partner in competition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>human often wins, even when instructed to prioritise the metronome </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>goal? -> perfect synchrony, not isochrony </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>computer easier to ignore than human? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>needs proper work </li></ul></ul><ul><li>communication and social interaction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>only measuring their “traces” so far, not very successfully </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>accentuation (metric profile, leadership, communication) </li></ul></ul>
  10. 11. Synchronisation vs. syncopation
  11. 12. Results: sensory domains <ul><li>constant finding: “auditory only” best for accuracy (ind & coord), “visual only” worst </li></ul><ul><ul><li>in line with Repp & Penel 2003 etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>auditory + visual: conflicting results </li></ul><ul><li>perhaps linked to task complexity? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>auditory information “enough” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>participants chose not to look at each other when given the chance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>use of gestures for social influence -> MoCap? </li></ul></ul>
  12. 13. Results: human vs. computer <ul><li>12 musicians 28.6 y.o.a (range 21-41), 13.75 yrs FMT (range 4-23) </li></ul><ul><li>synchronisation / syncopation </li></ul><ul><li>auditory feedback </li></ul><ul><li>actual interaction for one participant at a time occasionally replaced with passive playback: deadpan, “humanised”, tempo +/- </li></ul><ul><li>1st part: tapping, 2nd part: tapping + detection </li></ul>
  13. 14. Trials 1 2 P
  14. 15. Trials 1 2
  15. 16. Results - stability F = 4.241 df=5, p=.003
  16. 17. Results - asynchrony F = 4.072, df=5, p= 0.008
  17. 18. Results <ul><li>Some people very good at distinguishing between human and computer tappers </li></ul><ul><li>in average, significant detection (d’) 1.44 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>huge individual differences (-.43 — 2.7) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>questionnaire: ease of detection and ease of performance inversely related (the more difficult the task, the more “help” we need) </li></ul>
  18. 19. Conclusions <ul><li>Co-operative tapping links what we know very well (SMS) with what we know too little about (social interaction) </li></ul><ul><li>Shared intentions - mutual adaptation </li></ul><ul><li>complementary roles of sensory domains </li></ul><ul><li>humans sensitive to “mutuality” in error correction (strong social significance) </li></ul>
  19. 20. Why personality? <ul><li>Personality - individual differences (people differ from each other in systematic ways) </li></ul><ul><li>Personality: person’s interface in social interaction </li></ul><ul><li>Links between motor performance and personality (Eysenck) </li></ul><ul><li>Importance in dyadic research: effects of match - mismatch </li></ul><ul><li>Social influence </li></ul>
  20. 21. Social influence: Asch & Berns <ul><li>Triplett (1898) </li></ul><ul><li>Asch (1951,1952) </li></ul><ul><li>social influence - perceptual task; some s’s give “wrong” answers under social pressure </li></ul><ul><li>Berns et al. (2005) </li></ul><ul><li>mental rotation / fMRI / social pressure </li></ul><ul><li>humans > computer </li></ul><ul><li>both perceptual & normative </li></ul>a b c
  21. 22. Personality - measures <ul><li>Pen & Paper, quick to fill, easy to score </li></ul><ul><li>Big Five Inventory, BFI (John & Srivastava 1999) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>44 questions, 5 factors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Statements - agree / disagree </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Scale for Interpersonal Behaviour, SIB (Arrindell & van der Ende 1985) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2 x 50 questions, 4 factors + sum factor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Statements: how tense / how likely </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Display of negative feelings, Expression of and dealing with personal limitations, Initiating assertiveness, Positive assertion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>General assertiveness </li></ul></ul></ul>
  22. 23. “Pilot study” 1 <ul><li>Assertiveness (SIB) and coordination </li></ul><ul><li>small sample (7 pairs), random pairing </li></ul><ul><li>results: no correlations between performance (accuracy) and assertiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Lessons learned: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>pairing: matched vs. unmatched (top/bottom quartiles) (might not be enough, though) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>tasks: increase the interdependence of participants </li></ul></ul>
  23. 24. Pilot study 2 <ul><li>Personality type (BFI) and individual tapping performance </li></ul><ul><li>Baseline: individual differences </li></ul><ul><li>extraverts quicker to move but worse in sustaining activity? </li></ul><ul><li>Results: very small variability in R, no correlation with personality traits </li></ul><ul><li>Lessons learned: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>longer trials? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>but, good news, as differences in co-op tapping study due to social interaction? </li></ul></ul>
  24. 25. Plan <ul><li>Stage 1: Individual tapping test + SIB & BFI </li></ul><ul><li>Stage 2: Co-operative tapping tasks, paired according to stage 1 (match/mismatch) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>synchronisation, syncopation, interlocking rhythms & turn-taking tasks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SMT mismatch? Individuals inconsistent </li></ul></ul>
  25. 26. Thank you! <ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>mindsync.wordpress.com </li></ul>xkcd.com

×