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.

Interacting Minds 2: Dynamic minds

97 views

Published on

Seminar in Labex H2H in Paris, 15.11.2017

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Interacting Minds 2: Dynamic minds

  1. 1. Interacting minds II. Dynamic minds Tommi Himberg 15.11.2017
  2. 2. 2 tommi.himberg@aalto.fi @tijh mindsync.wordpress.com
  3. 3. Seminar series I) Social minds (2.11.) II) Dynamic minds (15.11.) III) Embodied minds (22.11.) 3
  4. 4. Schilbach et al. 2013
  5. 5. Starting points
  6. 6. Studying interaction • behavioural matching <-> entrainment • interlinked changes in behaviour/brain, at different time-scales • attunement, adaptation, modulation, coordination, synchrony, matching… 6
  7. 7. Dynamics of coordination • intentional synchrony (Haken, Kelso & Buntz, 1985) • bimanual oscillation (finger-wiggling) • order parameter: relative phase φ • control parameter: frequency of oscillation • different stability of in-phase & anti-phase • also observed interpersonally (Schmidt, Carello & Turvey, 1990) 7
  8. 8. Measuring interaction • focus on the interaction, not participants • look at the dynamics / temporal evolution • accuracy / coordination / entrainment • direction of influence • enable the emergence of e.g. “togetherness” => arts-based research 8
  9. 9. Entrainment • “Two independent but connected oscillators converge in period and/or phase.” • unintentional; occurs in any social situation • intentional; foregrounded in music and dance 9(Clayton, Sager & Will, 2004)
  10. 10. Entrainment: conditions • coupling between agents • autonomy • flexibility 10 Himberg, 2017
  11. 11. Unintentional entrainment 11 Schmidt & O’Brien, 1998 Richardson et al., 2007
  12. 12. Gait entrainment • observation: people often walk in step when walking side-by-side • experimental approach: side-by-side treadmills • manipulation / investigation of coupling, intentionality, leg length etc. Nessler & Gilliland, 2009; Nessler et al., 2012
  13. 13. Gait entrainment 13 Intentional entrainmentNot coupled Nessler & Gilliland, 2009
  14. 14. Gait entrainment 14 Normal Mechanically coupled Nessler & Gilliland, 2009
  15. 15. Body sway 15Shockley, Santana & Fowler, 2003
  16. 16. Mutual adaptation
  17. 17. Mutuality in MT 17Spiro & Himberg, 2014
  18. 18. Choir Workshop 18
  19. 19. Constant, mutual adaptation • peak of the sum of CC’s at lag 0 suggests synchronicity • windowing reveals constant, mutual adjustment 19
  20. 20. Phase deviation per participant Group entrainment: Kuramoto model Order parameter Mean phase deviation (Band-pass filtered @ 2 Hz) 20Petri Toiviainen, 2011
  21. 21. Cultural effects 21
  22. 22. Dynamic attending
  23. 23. Dynamic attending • many environmental stimuli are periodic • many biological oscillators are entrained to light (circadian rhythms) • others entrain to faster rates, to sounds (music, speech) • our attentional system take advantage of this by entraining to these stimuli and focusing more attention to WHEN we expect things to happen. Jones 1976, Jones & Boltz 1989, Large & Jones 1999 23
  24. 24. Dynamic attending • attentional resources entrain with the stimulus • test can be e.g. pitch discrimination • empirical data agrees with theory T attentional energy 24 stimulus test time
  25. 25. Jones & Boltz 1989 25
  26. 26. ARAMEP • Attentional Resource Allocation in Music Ensemble Performance (Peter Keller) • prioritised integrative attending • (vs. non-prioritised vs. selective) • splitting attention between own part and the emerged whole 26
  27. 27. ARAMEP • resurssien saatavuus tahdistuneena musiikilliseen aktiviteettiin metrisen skeeman kautta Keller 2001 27
  28. 28. Eye-tracking attention 28
  29. 29. Fixations • scan path analysis: how we think influences how we look (Yarbus, 1967) • locations: viewing paintings, we focus on faces, hands (social information) • temporal structure: re-scanning areas (Anderson et al. 2013) • coordination of gaze patterns in dyads (Richardson & Dale, 2005) 29
  30. 30. Our study • 24 of participants (14 female, mean age 27) in 12 dyads • conversation tasks: joint decision-making (choosing adjectives & naming pictures) • multimodal recordings: full-body motion capture, audio-video, (mobile eye-tracking) ➡ 30
  31. 31. Tasks • warm-up games, wordgame, 2 adjective tasks, 3 picture naming tasks (order cb) • adjective task: “together, choose an adjective starting with the letter [h…o] that describes [a cartoon character] • picture naming task: together, choose a name for each picture in the plate • 8 decisions / task, self-paced • facing & not facing, shared & own plates (+ walking) 31
  32. 32. 32
  33. 33. Analysis • CA expert annotated the sequential structure of the decisions: • “begin”: participants establish their task • “middle”: making proposals and discussing • “end”: committing to the final decision ➡ in analysis, “transitions” and “continuations” • IRR: 93.7% / junctions timed within 1s: 89.6% • movement data: quantity of motion, synchronisation of the QoM 33
  34. 34. 34
  35. 35. 35
  36. 36. Eye-tracking 36
  37. 37. 37
  38. 38. 38 %
  39. 39. Preliminary results • partner responds to proposal with gaze - most probably when the proposal is accepted, less frequently when they eventually reject the proposal • mutual gaze rarest when proposals get ignored 39

×