advertisement

Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig

50 %
50 %
advertisement
Information about Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig

Published on May 8, 2008

Author: tijh

Source: slideshare.net

Description

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

Co-operative Tapping: Musical and Social Interaction Tommi Himberg Finnish Centre of Excellence in Interdisciplinary Music Research Department of Music, University of Jyväskylä

Plan Co-operative Tapping methods and measures some results phase stability communication channels comparison of human & computer partners Musical / social interaction? Co-operative tapping and personality (planned) Motivation Linked / “pilot” studies Plans

Co-operative Tapping

methods and measures

some results

phase stability

communication channels

comparison of human & computer partners

Musical / social interaction?

Co-operative tapping and personality (planned)

Motivation

Linked / “pilot” studies

Plans

Co-operative tapping Experimenter Communication channels Co-operation Stimuli Stimuli Task Role Intention Task Role Intention 1 2

Co-operative Tapping tasks: synchronisation - continuation - mixed synchro - syncopation - rhythm - turn-taking conditions: auditory - visual - both interaction: actual - delayed - faked - (simulated) different tempi instructions / motivations ??

tasks:

synchronisation - continuation - mixed

synchro - syncopation - rhythm - turn-taking

conditions:

auditory - visual - both

interaction: actual - delayed - faked - (simulated)

different tempi

instructions / motivations ??

Co-op Tap : Measures Analysis: MIDI ToolBox + Tapping ToolKit Individual stability / variability unproblematic (same as individual tapping tasks) local variability (Madison 1999) Circular measures (can deal with varying phase relations, matching, less sensitive to missing taps etc.) (Fisher 1993) R (mean resultant length) Coordination (mutual adaptation) asynchrony of parts (Rasch 1982) (STD of unsigned asynchr.) angle difference / variance windowed cross-correlation

Analysis: MIDI ToolBox + Tapping ToolKit

Individual stability / variability

unproblematic (same as individual tapping tasks)

local variability (Madison 1999)

Circular measures (can deal with varying phase relations, matching, less sensitive to missing taps etc.) (Fisher 1993)

R (mean resultant length)

Coordination (mutual adaptation)

asynchrony of parts (Rasch 1982) (STD of unsigned asynchr.)

angle difference / variance

windowed cross-correlation

Circular measures T can be set locally or globally

Rose histogram

Windowing / cross-correlation Cross-correlation would indicate who is leading and who is lagging Usually flat profiles for trials (or equal lag 1 and lag -1) --> “leadership” not a static property, but fluctuates over time (due to automatic error correction) solution: calculate CC in a moving window

Cross-correlation would indicate who is leading and who is lagging

Usually flat profiles for trials (or equal lag 1 and lag -1)

--> “leadership” not a static property, but fluctuates over time (due to automatic error correction)

solution: calculate CC in a moving window

 

Assorted results synchronising with shared metronome: metronome and partner in competition human often wins, even when instructed to prioritise the metronome goal? -> perfect synchrony, not isochrony computer easier to ignore than human? needs proper work communication and social interaction only measuring their “traces” so far, not very successfully accentuation (metric profile, leadership, communication)

synchronising with shared metronome:

metronome and partner in competition

human often wins, even when instructed to prioritise the metronome

goal? -> perfect synchrony, not isochrony

computer easier to ignore than human?

needs proper work

communication and social interaction

only measuring their “traces” so far, not very successfully

accentuation (metric profile, leadership, communication)

Synchronisation vs. syncopation

Results: sensory domains constant finding: “auditory only” best for accuracy (ind & coord), “visual only” worst in line with Repp & Penel 2003 etc. auditory + visual: conflicting results perhaps linked to task complexity? auditory information “enough” participants chose not to look at each other when given the chance use of gestures for social influence -> MoCap?

constant finding: “auditory only” best for accuracy (ind & coord), “visual only” worst

in line with Repp & Penel 2003 etc.

auditory + visual: conflicting results

perhaps linked to task complexity?

auditory information “enough”

participants chose not to look at each other when given the chance

use of gestures for social influence -> MoCap?

Results: human vs. computer 12 musicians 28.6 y.o.a (range 21-41), 13.75 yrs FMT (range 4-23) synchronisation / syncopation auditory feedback actual interaction for one participant at a time occasionally replaced with passive playback: deadpan, “humanised”, tempo +/- 1st part: tapping, 2nd part: tapping + detection

12 musicians 28.6 y.o.a (range 21-41), 13.75 yrs FMT (range 4-23)

synchronisation / syncopation

auditory feedback

actual interaction for one participant at a time occasionally replaced with passive playback: deadpan, “humanised”, tempo +/-

1st part: tapping, 2nd part: tapping + detection

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 Some people very good at distinguishing between human and computer tappers in average, significant detection (d’) 1.44 huge individual differences (-.43 — 2.7) questionnaire: ease of detection and ease of performance inversely related (the more difficult the task, the more “help” we need)

Some people very good at distinguishing between human and computer tappers

in average, significant detection (d’) 1.44

huge individual differences (-.43 — 2.7)

questionnaire: ease of detection and ease of performance inversely related (the more difficult the task, the more “help” we need)

Conclusions Co-operative tapping links what we know very well (SMS) with what we know too little about (social interaction) Shared intentions - mutual adaptation complementary roles of sensory domains humans sensitive to “mutuality” in error correction (strong social significance)

Co-operative tapping links what we know very well (SMS) with what we know too little about (social interaction)

Shared intentions - mutual adaptation

complementary roles of sensory domains

humans sensitive to “mutuality” in error correction (strong social significance)

Why personality? Personality - individual differences (people differ from each other in systematic ways) Personality: person’s interface in social interaction Links between motor performance and personality (Eysenck) Importance in dyadic research: effects of match - mismatch Social influence

Personality - individual differences (people differ from each other in systematic ways)

Personality: person’s interface in social interaction

Links between motor performance and personality (Eysenck)

Importance in dyadic research: effects of match - mismatch

Social influence

Social influence: Asch & Berns Triplett (1898) Asch (1951,1952) social influence - perceptual task; some s’s give “wrong” answers under social pressure Berns et al. (2005) mental rotation / fMRI / social pressure humans > computer both perceptual & normative a b c

Triplett (1898)

Asch (1951,1952)

social influence - perceptual task; some s’s give “wrong” answers under social pressure

Berns et al. (2005)

mental rotation / fMRI / social pressure

humans > computer

both perceptual & normative

Personality - measures Pen & Paper, quick to fill, easy to score Big Five Inventory, BFI (John & Srivastava 1999) 44 questions, 5 factors Statements - agree / disagree Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness Scale for Interpersonal Behaviour, SIB (Arrindell & van der Ende 1985) 2 x 50 questions, 4 factors + sum factor Statements: how tense / how likely Display of negative feelings, Expression of and dealing with personal limitations, Initiating assertiveness, Positive assertion General assertiveness

Pen & Paper, quick to fill, easy to score

Big Five Inventory, BFI (John & Srivastava 1999)

44 questions, 5 factors

Statements - agree / disagree

Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness

Scale for Interpersonal Behaviour, SIB (Arrindell & van der Ende 1985)

2 x 50 questions, 4 factors + sum factor

Statements: how tense / how likely

Display of negative feelings, Expression of and dealing with personal limitations, Initiating assertiveness, Positive assertion

General assertiveness

“Pilot study” 1 Assertiveness (SIB) and coordination small sample (7 pairs), random pairing results: no correlations between performance (accuracy) and assertiveness Lessons learned: pairing: matched vs. unmatched (top/bottom quartiles) (might not be enough, though) tasks: increase the interdependence of participants

Assertiveness (SIB) and coordination

small sample (7 pairs), random pairing

results: no correlations between performance (accuracy) and assertiveness

Lessons learned:

pairing: matched vs. unmatched (top/bottom quartiles) (might not be enough, though)

tasks: increase the interdependence of participants

Pilot study 2 Personality type (BFI) and individual tapping performance Baseline: individual differences extraverts quicker to move but worse in sustaining activity? Results: very small variability in R, no correlation with personality traits Lessons learned: longer trials? but, good news, as differences in co-op tapping study due to social interaction?

Personality type (BFI) and individual tapping performance

Baseline: individual differences

extraverts quicker to move but worse in sustaining activity?

Results: very small variability in R, no correlation with personality traits

Lessons learned:

longer trials?

but, good news, as differences in co-op tapping study due to social interaction?

Plan Stage 1: Individual tapping test + SIB & BFI Stage 2: Co-operative tapping tasks, paired according to stage 1 (match/mismatch) synchronisation, syncopation, interlocking rhythms & turn-taking tasks SMT mismatch? Individuals inconsistent

Stage 1: Individual tapping test + SIB & BFI

Stage 2: Co-operative tapping tasks, paired according to stage 1 (match/mismatch)

synchronisation, syncopation, interlocking rhythms & turn-taking tasks

SMT mismatch? Individuals inconsistent

Thank you! [email_address] mindsync.wordpress.com xkcd.com

[email_address]

mindsync.wordpress.com

Add a comment

Related pages

Leipzig Glossing Rules - Documents - DOCSLIDE.US

Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig These are the slides for my presentation in the "Rhythmic Coordination in Dyads" symposium, ...
Read more

Blues Tapping Lick in A - Documents - docslide.us

Blues Tapping Lick in A; System is processing data Please download to view 1
Read more

Tommi Himberg - Publications

... I developed a cooperative tapping setup for studying rhythmic entrainment in dyads. ... T Eerola · T Himberg · P Toiviainen · J Louhivuori ·
Read more

Joint action in music performance (PDF Download Available)

14 Joint Action in Music Performance ... [102] T. Himberg, Co-operative tapping and collective time-keeping - differences of timing accuracy in
Read more

Tommi Himberg - Google Scholar Citations

Google Scholar. Citation ... T Himberg, L Nummenmaa, M ... Co-operative tapping and collective time-keeping–differences of timing accuracy in duet ...
Read more

Welcome! [bookalltt.ru]

Welcome!
Read more

Strategic alliances - Ebner Stolz

... and tapping sales in new markets through joint distribution companies. ... cooperative development projects to optimize innovation, ... Leipzig ;
Read more