Co-operative tapping T.Himberg in Leipzig

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

Thank you! Thank you!

tihimber@campus.jyu.fimindsync.wordpress.com

xkcd.com