Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Interacting Minds 2: Dynamic minds

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 39 Ad

More Related Content

Similar to Interacting Minds 2: Dynamic minds (20)

More from Tommi Himberg (18)

Advertisement

Recently uploaded (20)

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

×