1 / 19

Dwight Krehbiel, Professor of Psychology Bethel College, North Newton, KS

Biopsychological Responses to Music Chosen by a Computer: Validation of a Music Search Engine July 31, 2009. Dwight Krehbiel, Professor of Psychology Bethel College, North Newton, KS. Acknowledgments Professor Bill Manaris, Department of Computer Science, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC

savea
Download Presentation

Dwight Krehbiel, Professor of Psychology Bethel College, North Newton, KS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Biopsychological Responses to Music Chosen by a Computer: Validation of a Music Search EngineJuly 31, 2009 Dwight Krehbiel, Professor of Psychology Bethel College, North Newton, KS

  2. Acknowledgments Professor Bill Manaris, Department of Computer Science, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC and his students: Patrick Roos Luca Pellicoro Thomas Zalonis J.R. Armstrong who created the search engine used in the experiments And Bethel student collaborators: Aimee Siebert Tim Burns José Rojas Erin White Sonia Barrera Becky Buchta Yue Yu Brittany Baker Sierra Pryce Elizabeth Friesen Naomi Graber Lisa Penner This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0849499 and No. 0736480 from the Division of Information and Intelligent Systems and Grant No. 0511082 from the Division of Undergraduate Education.

  3. Zipf’s law: The probability of an event of rank f is inversely proportional to that rank f raised to some power n, and n is close to 1. or P(f) ~ 1/fn Example events in music: pitches, durations, harmonic intervals, melodic intervals but also pairs of intervals, sets of three intervals, etc. Basic finding: Music that is Zipfian is generally judged to be more pleasant than is non-Zipfian music. Natural Patterns in Music(and Many Other Phenomena)‏

  4. Web User Interface of the Search Engine

  5. Do listeners like what the search engine finds?

  6. Liking RatingsExcerpt Set A (n=25)Genre Familiarity Ratings O: originalMS: most similarMS2: 2nd most similarMD2: 2nd most dissimilarMD: most dissimilar O MS MS2 MD2 MD O MS MS2 MD2 MD Liking RatingsExcerpt Set B (n=25)Genre Familiarity Ratings O MS MS2 MD2 MD O MS MS2 MD2 MD

  7. Experimental Design & Procedure

  8. Two sets of excerpts (one min/excerpt)‏ Set A - set of 7 presented to all participants: O = original, MS = most similar, MS2 = 2nd most similar, MS3 = 3rd most similar, MD3= 3rd most dissimilar, MD2 = 2nd most dissimilar, MD = most dissimilar Set B - set of 5 unique to each participant (chosen from one of their three favorite genres): O, MS, MS2, MD2, MD Random order of all 12 excerpts for each participant 40 participants Instrumental music only Experimental Design (cont)‏

  9. Emotion Rating Instrument

  10. One of Our Participants

  11. Psychological Ratings – Set A

  12. Psychological Ratings – Set B

  13. Posterior Frontal Asymmetry – Set A Asymmetry Near the Central Sulcus – Set A n = 38

  14. Skin Conductance Changes during the Music – Set A(Individual Participants' Data)‏

  15. Heart Interbeat Intervals (IBI)- SetsA & B(means and standard deviations across 60 sec of listening

  16. All Psycho-physiological Measures– Set A(means across 60 sec of listening)‏

  17. Summary & Conclusions A search engine based on aesthetic similarity can find music that we like, perhaps by finding music with sound patterns that are already familiar. Affective responses to similar music found by the search engine (pleasantness, activation, liking) are clearly different from those to dissimilar music. Similarity judgments by human participants show clear agreement with search engine ratings.

  18. Summary & Conclusions (cont) • Hemispheric asymmetry measures (alpha power) show significant differences between similar and dissimilar music when all participants listen to the same music, but not when preferences are controlled (i.e. asymmetry is not closely correlated with consciously reported affective responses). • Peripheral psychophysiological responses also display significant differences between similar and dissimilar music. Heart rate differences do appear to be correlated with affective responses.

More Related