co-operative tapping t.himberg in leipzig
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.TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Co-operative Tapping: Musical and Social
Interaction
Co-operative Tapping: Musical and Social
Interaction Tommi Himberg
Finnish Centre of Excellence in Interdisciplinary Music Research
Department of Music, University of Jyväskylä
![Page 2: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
PlanPlan
• Co-operative Tappingo methods and measureso some results
• phase stability • communication channels• comparison of human & computer partners
• Musical / social interaction? o Co-operative tapping and personality
(planned)o Motivationo Linked / “pilot” studieso Plans
![Page 3: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Co-operative tappingCo-operative tapping
Experimenter
12
Communication channels
Co-operation
Stim
uli Stim
uli
TaskRole
Intention
TaskRole
Intention
![Page 4: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Co-operative TappingCo-operative Tapping• tasks:
o synchronisation - continuation - mixedo synchro - syncopation - rhythm - turn-
taking
• conditions:o auditory - visual - botho interaction: actual - delayed - faked -
(simulated)o different tempio instructions / motivations ??
![Page 5: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Co-op Tap: MeasuresCo-op Tap: Measures• Analysis: MIDI ToolBox + Tapping ToolKit• Individual stability / variability
o unproblematic (same as individual tapping tasks)
o local variability (Madison 1999)
o Circular measures (can deal with varying phase relations, matching, less sensitive to missing taps etc.) (Fisher 1993)
o R (mean resultant length)
• Coordination (mutual adaptation)o asynchrony of parts (Rasch 1982) (STD of unsigned
asynchr.)o angle difference / varianceo windowed cross-correlation
![Page 6: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Circular measuresCircular measures
T can be set locally or globally
![Page 7: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Rose histogramRose histogram
![Page 8: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Windowing / cross-correlation
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
![Page 9: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Assorted resultsAssorted results• synchronising with shared metronome:
o metronome and partner in competitiono human often wins, even when instructed to
prioritise the metronome o goal? -> perfect synchrony, not isochronyo computer easier to ignore than human?o needs proper work
• communication and social interactiono only measuring their “traces” so far, not very
successfullyo accentuation (metric profile, leadership,
communication)
![Page 11: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Synchronisation vs. syncopation
Synchronisation vs. syncopation
![Page 12: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Results: sensory domainsResults: sensory domains
• constant finding: “auditory only” best for accuracy (ind & coord), “visual only” worst
o in line with Repp & Penel 2003 etc.
• auditory + visual: conflicting results• perhaps linked to task complexity?
o auditory information “enough”o participants chose not to look at each
other when given the chanceo use of gestures for social influence ->
MoCap?
![Page 13: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Results: human vs. computer
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
![Page 14: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
TrialsTrials
1
2
P
![Page 15: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
TrialsTrials
1 2
![Page 16: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Results - stabilityResults - stability
F = 4.241 df=5, p=.003
![Page 17: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Results - asynchronyResults - asynchrony
F = 4.072, df=5, p= 0.008
![Page 18: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
ResultsResults
• Some people very good at distinguishing between human and computer tappers
• in average, significant detection (d’) 1.44
o 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)
![Page 19: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
ConclusionsConclusions• 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)
![Page 20: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Why personality?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
![Page 21: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Social influence: Asch & Berns
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
![Page 22: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Personality - measuresPersonality - measures• Pen & Paper, quick to fill, easy to score• Big Five Inventory, BFI (John & Srivastava 1999)
o 44 questions, 5 factors• Statements - agree / disagree• Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Openness
• Scale for Interpersonal Behaviour, SIB (Arrindell & van der Ende 1985)
o 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
![Page 23: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
“Pilot study” 1“Pilot study” 1• Assertiveness (SIB) and coordination • small sample (7 pairs), random pairing• results: no correlations between
performance (accuracy) and assertiveness
• Lessons learned:o pairing: matched vs. unmatched
(top/bottom quartiles) (might not be enough, though)
o tasks: increase the interdependence of participants
![Page 24: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Pilot study 2Pilot 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:
o longer trials?o but, good news, as differences in co-op tapping
study due to social interaction?
![Page 25: Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062707/5585bea8d8b42a49548b50f3/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
PlanPlan
• Stage 1: Individual tapping test + SIB & BFI
• Stage 2: Co-operative tapping tasks, paired according to stage 1 (match/mismatch)
o synchronisation, syncopation, interlocking rhythms & turn-taking tasks
o SMT mismatch? Individuals inconsistent