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
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
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
Co-operative tappingCo-operative tapping
Experimenter
12
Communication channels
Co-operation
Stim
uli Stim
uli
TaskRole
Intention
TaskRole
Intention
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 ??
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
Circular measuresCircular measures
T can be set locally or globally
Rose histogramRose histogram
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
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)
Synchronisation vs. syncopation
Synchronisation vs. syncopation
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?
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
TrialsTrials
1
2
P
TrialsTrials
1 2
Results - stabilityResults - stability
F = 4.241 df=5, p=.003
Results - asynchronyResults - asynchrony
F = 4.072, df=5, p= 0.008
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)
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)
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
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
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
“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
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?
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