Petr Janata & Joshua Peterson Center for Mind and Brain...
1
On the determinants of listening time for novel musical excerpts Petr Janata & Joshua Peterson Center for Mind and Brain, Univ. of California, Davis, Davis, California, USA 20 40 60 2 4 6 Listening Time Enjoyment r= 0.61 Enjoyment 20 40 60 2 4 6 Listening Time Mood Congruity r= 0.59 Mood Congruity 20 40 60 2 4 6 Listening Time Complexity r= 0.37 Complexity 20 40 60 2 4 6 Listening Time Interest r= 0.56 Interest 2 4 6 2 4 6 Enjoyment Mood Congruity r= 0.93 2 4 6 2 4 6 Enjoyment Complexity r= 0.60 2 4 6 2 4 6 Enjoyment Interest r= 0.93 2 4 6 2 4 6 Mood Congruity Complexity r= 0.54 2 4 6 2 4 6 Mood Congruity Interest r= 0.87 2 4 6 2 4 6 Complexity Interest r= 0.72 20 40 60 2 4 6 Listening Time Enjoyment r= 0.29 Enjoyment 20 40 60 2 4 6 Listening Time Mood Congruity r= 0.24 Mood Congruity 2 4 6 2 4 6 Enjoyment Mood Congruity r= 0.87 20 40 60 2 4 6 Listening Time Complexity r= 0.11 Complexity 2 4 6 2 4 6 Enjoyment Complexity r= 0.60 2 4 6 2 4 6 Mood Congruity Complexity r= 0.52 20 40 60 2 4 6 Listening Time Interest r= 0.27 Interest 2 4 6 2 4 6 Enjoyment Interest r= 0.83 2 4 6 2 4 6 Mood Congruity Interest r= 0.74 2 4 6 2 4 6 Complexity Interest r= 0.74 Experiment 2 Experiment 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Time (s) Average listening time by stimulus category Simultaneous Least Optimal Staggered Most Optimal Staggered Exp2 Best Simultaneous Exp2 Best Staggered Composed Spatial No Harmony No Rhythm Experiment 2 Experiment 3 Introduction One implicit measure of how much a listener likes a piece of music is how long s/he will listen to it before choosing to listen to something else. Although the amount of time spent engaging with a stimulus is a common measure of prefer- ence or familiarity in infant studies, and was utilized decades ago in aesthetics research, the potential of this simple appetitive measure seems underutilized in music perception research. Across three studies, we sought to determine musical and psychological factors that influence the amount of time a person listens to a stimulus. Stimuli Experiment 1: Logic Pro was used to assemble 162 different loops within 7 approximate genre categories [Blues (7), Contemporary Rock (19), Folk (12), Funk (20), Jazz (15), Rock (24), R&B (20)] and a large miscellaneous category (45 loops) that defied easy classification. Loops typically combined 4 instrument loops in 4/4 meter from the AppleLoops library, with a repeat length of 8 s. All instruments began playing at the same time. The basic unit was repeated for 2 minutes. Experiment 2: 10 composite loops each from the bottom, middle, and top of the ratings in Experiment 1 were used, either in their original form, or manipulated such that the entrances of individual instrument parts were staggered to occur ~8 seconds apart. Separate sets of “optimally” and “less optimally” staggered loops were constructed. “Optimality” was an aesthetic judgment of one of the experimenters and an undergraduate who assisted with loop construction. We predicted that listening times would increase for staggered entrance loops. Experiment 3: A total of 266 stimuli were assessed: 1) The 10 best and worst staggered, and 5 best and worst simultaneous loops from Experiment 2. 2) Forty seven loops (typically with 4 instruments and a period length of 8 s) were composed using Logic Pro instruments by two undergraduate music majors. The parts were played by the composers. Thus timing in the original loop was not snapped to a metronomic grid. 3) Each original loop was modified in 4 ways: 1) a change in instrumentation/timbre, 2) minimization of rhythmic variation, 3) minimization of harmonic change, 4) spatialization (panning) of individual instruments. We predicted that spatialization would increase listening times, while reduction of rhythmic or hamonic variation would decrease listening times. 4) The first two minutes of the commercial recording of Chameleon (Herbie Hancock), in which a new instrument enters every ~15 s, was used as a real world calibration. Procedure Each experiment was 1 hour long and administered online using Ensemble. Participants (UC Davis undergraduates participating for course credit) were instructed to listen to each musical selection as long as they wanted to before clicking a button that took them to a first form on which they an- swered a series of questions (Table 1), and a second form asking them to endorse, using checkboxes, the reasons the continued to listen as long as they did and the reasons they stopped listening (Figure 2). Participants were told that the experiment would last ex- actly one hour, and that the amount of time they spent lis- tening to any given loop had no bearing on the duration of the session. Thus every loop was not rated by each par- ticipant. On average, each loop was rated by 40, 26, and 13 participants in Experiments 1 (N=92), 2 (N=94) and 3 (N=107), respectively. Data Analysis Data filtering: Trials on which the participant indicated they would have changed the music earlier but got distracted were removed from further analysis (12.5% of trials in Experiment 2; 16.9% of trials in Experiment 3). Raw listening times were exponentially distributed, and log transformed prior to statistical analysis. Multiple regression analysis: We used the lme function from the R package nlme to compare listening times between stimulus categories in Experiments 2 and 3 (Figure 3). Random subject intercepts were modeled in all analyses. For the mediation analyses (Figure 5), random slopes were modeled for explana- tory variables of interest when the model contained two or fewer explanatory variables. I kept waiting for a new part to enter I liked the rhythms I liked the instruments that were playing I liked how the instruments fit together I liked the melodies I would have changed it earlier, but I got distracted I kept listening because I heard new things in the music I liked the simplicity of the music The music made me feel good I liked the complexity of the music The music matched my mood 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage of stimuli Percentage of stimuli I got bored I was curious what the next musical stimulus would be The sound of a particular instrument bothered me I didn’t like the combination of instruments that was playing I kept wanting the existing parts to change, but they didn’t The music didn’t match my mood I kept wanting a new part to enter, but it didn’t I didn’t like some of the rhythms I didn’t like some of the melodies 0 10 20 30 40 50 Continuation reasons Termination reasons Experiment 40.1 26.8 29.6 22.1 16.3 NA 11.5 11.1 NA 11.4 NA 37.5 25.4 22.1 20.4 14.9 14.8 15 11.5 13.7 10.5 NA 30.3 21.4 20.3 16.5 16.8 17.1 12.2 14.3 10.9 11.1 6.45 1 2 3 Experiment 50.3 22.6 19.4 17 15.4 NA 13.2 12.7 11 45.7 24.4 20 19.5 15 NA 16.5 13 10.8 42.2 27 14.9 16 16 14.6 12.4 11 9.67 1 2 3 Listening time Enjoyment Interesting Complex Match Mood .135 .402 .708 (.278) .568 .770 Experiment 2 Listening time Enjoyment Urge to Move Groove .115 .429 .719 .471 Experiment 1 Listening time Enjoyment Interesting Complex Match Mood .037 .092 .116 .070 .079 .274 -.033 .020 .404 .092 .032 .386 Experiment 3 Groove Familiar Table 1. Questions asked following each musical excerpt Experiment Question 1 2 3 How much did you enjoy the musical excerpt? (1 = not at all; 7 = very much) Yes Yes Yes To what extent did you feel that the musical excerpt grooved? (1=least groove; 7=most groove) Yes No Yes (slight variation) Did you move along with the music, e.g. bob your head, tap your toes, tap your hands, sway? (Yes, No) Yes Yes No How well did the musical excerpt match your current mood (1 = not at all; 7 = very much) No Yes Yes To what extent did the musical stimulus sound complex? (1 = not at all; 7 = very much) No Yes Yes To what extent did you find the musical excerpt interesting? (1 = not at all; 7 = very much) No Yes Yes To what extent did you feel an urge to move while listening to the music? (1 = not at all; 7 = very much) Yes No No Simultaneous Composed Staggered Figure 1. Examples of main stimulus categories. Figure 2. Rank ordered percentages of trials on which participants endorsed a specific reason for terminating a stimulus and listening to a stimulus for as long as they did. Distributions of average listening times 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 Experiment 1 162 stimuli #stimuli 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 #stimuli Experiment 2 89 stimuli 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 5 10 15 20 25 #stimuli Experiment 3 266 stimuli Chameleon Time (s) Time (s) Time (s) Figure 3. Average listening times. *** p < 0.0001 Figure 5. Mediation analyses. In Experiments 1 and 2, enjoyment full mediated the effects of other sub- jective variables on listening time. How interesting and mood matching and excerpt was in Experiment 3 influenced both enjoyment and listening time directly. Figure 4. Correlations between listening times and each of the post-stimulus scales. Each circle corresponds to one stimulus. *** *** *** Conclusions Even when presented with novel polyphonic musical stimuli that are timbrally rich and posses a modicum of tim- bral, tonal, and rhythmic variability, listeners require an added degree of change, such as the entrance of instru- ments, facilitate enjoyment and increase the time they are willing to listen to the music. Without change, the typical window of interest wanes with 15 s. Entrances every 8 s are capable of sustaining interest. However, increased melodic and harmonic variability in the composed stimuli may have mitigated the effects of onset simultaneity. Acknowledgments We thank Hannah Whiteside, Sonia Ran, Clinton Ngan, and Bokyeung Keum for assistance with stimulus preparation. All stimuli Exp2 Best Simultaneous Exp2 Best Staggered Composed Spatial No Harmony No Rhythm All stimuli Simultaneous Least Optimal Most Optimal
Transcript of Petr Janata & Joshua Peterson Center for Mind and Brain...
On the determinants of listening time for novel musical excerpts Petr Janata & Joshua Peterson
Center for Mind and Brain, Univ. of California, Davis, Davis, California, USA
20 40 60
2
4
6
Listening Time
Enjo
ymen
t r= 0.61
Enjoyment
20 40 60
2
4
6
Listening Time
Moo
d C
ongr
uity r= 0.59
Mood Congruity
20 40 60
2
4
6
Listening Time
Com
plex
ity r= 0.37
Complexity
20 40 60
2
4
6
Listening Time
Inte
rest
r= 0.56
Interest
2 4 6
2
4
6
Enjoyment
Moo
d C
ongr
uity r= 0.93
2 4 6
2
4
6
Enjoyment
Com
plex
ity r= 0.60
2 4 6
2
4
6
Enjoyment
Inte
rest
r= 0.93
2 4 6
2
4
6
Mood Congruity
Com
plex
ity r= 0.54
2 4 6
2
4
6
Mood Congruity
Inte
rest
r= 0.87
2 4 6
2
4
6
Complexity
Inte
rest
r= 0.72
20 40 60
2
4
6
Listening Time
Enjo
ymen
t r= 0.29
Enjo
ymen
t
20 40 60
2
4
6
Listening Time
Moo
d C
ongr
uity r= 0.24
Moo
d C
ongr
uity
2 4 6
2
4
6
Enjoyment
Moo
d C
ongr
uity r= 0.87
20 40 60
2
4
6
Listening Time
Com
plex
ity r= 0.11
Com
plex
ity
2 4 6
2
4
6
Enjoyment
Com
plex
ity r= 0.60
2 4 6
2
4
6
Mood Congruity
Com
plex
ity r= 0.52
20 40 60
2
4
6
Listening Time
Inte
rest
r= 0.27
Inte
rest
2 4 6
2
4
6
Enjoyment
Inte
rest
r= 0.83
2 4 6
2
4
6
Mood Congruity
Inte
rest
r= 0.74
2 4 6
2
4
6
Complexity
Inte
rest
r= 0.74
Experi
ment 2
Experiment 3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (s)
Average listening time by stimulus category
Simultaneous
Least Optimal Staggered
Most Optimal Staggered
Exp2 Best Simultaneous
Exp2 Best Staggered
Composed
Spatial
No Harmony
No Rhythm
Expe
rimen
t 2Ex
perim
ent 3
IntroductionOne implicit measure of how much a listener likes a piece of music is how long s/he will listen to it before choosing to listen to something else. Although the amount of time spent engaging with a stimulus is a common measure of prefer-ence or familiarity in infant studies, and was utilized decades ago in aesthetics research, the potential of this simple appetitive measure seems underutilized in music perception research. Across three studies, we sought to determine musical and psychological factors that influence the amount of time a person listens to a stimulus.
StimuliExperiment 1: Logic Pro was used to assemble 162 different loops within 7 approximate genre categories [Blues (7), Contemporary Rock (19), Folk (12), Funk (20), Jazz (15), Rock (24), R&B (20)] and a large miscellaneous category (45 loops) that defied easy classification. Loops typically combined 4 instrument loops in 4/4 meter from the AppleLoops library, with a repeat length of 8 s. All instruments began playing at the same time. The basic unit was repeated for 2 minutes.Experiment 2: 10 composite loops each from the bottom, middle, and top of the ratings in Experiment 1 were used, either in their original form, or manipulated such that the entrances of individual instrument parts were staggered to occur ~8 seconds apart. Separate sets of “optimally” and “less optimally” staggered loops were constructed. “Optimality” was an aesthetic judgment of one of the experimenters and an undergraduate who assisted with loop construction. We predicted that listening times would increase for staggered entrance loops.Experiment 3: A total of 266 stimuli were assessed: 1) The 10 best and worst staggered, and 5 best and worst simultaneous loops from Experiment 2. 2) Forty seven loops (typically with 4 instruments and a period length of 8 s) were composed using Logic Pro instruments by two undergraduate music majors. The parts were played by the composers. Thus timing in the original loop was not snapped to a metronomic grid. 3) Each original loop was modified in 4 ways: 1) a change in instrumentation/timbre, 2) minimization of rhythmic variation, 3) minimization of harmonic change, 4) spatialization (panning) of individual instruments. We predicted that spatialization would increase listening times, while reduction of rhythmic or hamonic variation would decrease listening times. 4) The first two minutes of the commercial recording of Chameleon (Herbie Hancock), in which a new instrument enters every ~15 s, was used as a real world calibration.
ProcedureEach experiment was 1 hour long and administered online using Ensemble. Participants (UC Davis undergraduates participating for course credit) were instructed to listen to each musical selection as long as they wanted to before clicking a button that took them to a first form on which they an-swered a series of questions (Table 1), and a second form asking them to endorse, using checkboxes, the reasons the continued to listen as long as they did and the reasons they stopped listening (Figure 2). Participants were told that the experiment would last ex-actly one hour, and that the amount of time they spent lis-tening to any given loop had no bearing on the duration of the session. Thus every loop was not rated by each par-ticipant. On average, each loop was rated by 40, 26, and 13 participants in Experiments 1 (N=92), 2 (N=94) and 3 (N=107), respectively.
Data AnalysisData filtering: Trials on which the participant indicated they would have changed the music earlier but got distracted were removed from further analysis (12.5% of trials in Experiment 2; 16.9% of trials in Experiment 3). Raw listening times were exponentially distributed, and log transformed prior to statistical analysis.Multiple regression analysis: We used the lme function from the R package nlme to compare listening times between stimulus categories in Experiments 2 and 3 (Figure 3). Random subject intercepts were modeled in all analyses. For the mediation analyses (Figure 5), random slopes were modeled for explana-tory variables of interest when the model contained two or fewer explanatory variables.
I kept waiting for a new part to enterI liked the rhythms
I liked the instruments that were playingI liked how the instruments fit together
I liked the melodiesI would have changed it earlier, but I got distracted
I kept listening because I heard new things in the musicI liked the simplicity of the music
The music made me feel goodI liked the complexity of the music
The music matched my mood0
10
20
30
40
50
Perc
enta
ge o
f stim
uli
Perc
enta
ge o
f stim
uli
I got boredI was curious what the next musical stimulus would be
The sound of a particular instrument bothered meI didn’t like the combination of instruments that was playing
I kept wanting the existing parts to change, but they didn’tThe music didn’t match my mood
I kept wanting a new part to enter, but it didn’tI didn’t like some of the rhythms
I didn’t like some of the melodies0
10
20
30
40
50
Continuation reasons
Termination reasons
Experiment
40.1
26.8
29.6
22.1
16.3
NA
11.5
11.1
NA
11.4
NA
37.5
25.4
22.1
20.4
14.9
14.8
15
11.5
13.7
10.5
NA
30.3
21.4
20.3
16.5
16.8
17.1
12.2
14.3
10.9
11.1
6.451 2 3
Experiment
50.3
22.6
19.4
17
15.4
NA
13.2
12.7
11
45.7
24.4
20
19.5
15
NA
16.5
13
10.8
42.2
27
14.9
16
16
14.6
12.4
11
9.67
1 2 3
Listening timeEnjoyment
InterestingComplex
Match Mood
.135
.402
.708(.278)
.568.770
Experiment 2
Listening timeEnjoyment
Urge to Move
Groove
.115
.429
.719
.471Experiment 1
Listening timeEnjoyment
Interesting
Complex
Match Mood
.037.092
.116
.070
.079
.274
-.033
.020
.404
.092
.032
.386
Experiment 3
Groove
Familiar
Table 1. Questions asked following each musical excerpt
Experiment
Question 1 2 3
How much did you enjoy the musical excerpt? (1 = not at all; 7 = very much) Yes Yes Yes To what extent did you feel that the musical excerpt grooved? (1=least groove; 7=most groove)
Yes No Yes (slight
variation) Did you move along with the music, e.g. bob your head, tap your toes, tap your hands, sway? (Yes, No)
Yes Yes No How well did the musical excerpt match your current mood
?
(1 = not at all; 7 = very much)
No Yes Yes
To what extent did the musical stimulus sound complex? (1 = not at all; 7 = very much)
No Yes Yes
To what extent did you find the musical excerpt interesting? (1 = not at all; 7 = very much)
No Yes Yes
To what extent did you feel an urge to move while listening to the music? (1 = not at all; 7 = very much)
Yes No No
Simultaneous
Composed
Staggered
Figure 1. Examples of main stimulus categories.
Figure 2. Rank ordered percentages of trials on which participants endorsed a specific reason for terminating a stimulus and listening to a stimulus for as long as they did.
Distributions of average listening times
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
10
20
30
40Experiment 1
162 stimuli
#stim
uli
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
2
4
6
8
10
12
#stim
uli
Experiment 2
89 stimuli
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
5
10
15
20
25
#stim
uli
Experiment 3
266 stimuliChameleon
Time (s)
Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure 3. Average listening times. *** p < 0.0001
Figure 5. Mediation analyses. In Experiments 1 and 2, enjoyment full mediated the effects of other sub-jective variables on listening time. How interesting and mood matching and excerpt was in Experiment 3 influenced both enjoyment and listening time directly.
Figure 4. Correlations between listening times and each of the post-stimulus scales. Each circle corresponds to one stimulus.
***
***
***
ConclusionsEven when presented with novel polyphonic musical stimuli that are timbrally rich and posses a modicum of tim-bral, tonal, and rhythmic variability, listeners require an added degree of change, such as the entrance of instru-ments, facilitate enjoyment and increase the time they are willing to listen to the music. Without change, the typical window of interest wanes with 15 s. Entrances every 8 s are capable of sustaining interest. However, increased melodic and harmonic variability in the composed stimuli may have mitigated the effects of onset simultaneity.
AcknowledgmentsWe thank Hannah Whiteside, Sonia Ran, Clinton Ngan, and Bokyeung Keum for assistance with stimulus preparation.
All stimuliExp2 Best SimultaneousExp2 Best StaggeredComposedSpatialNo HarmonyNo Rhythm
All stimuliSimultaneousLeast OptimalMost Optimal
![[XLS] · Web view163 (Chowdury Bari), Janata Housing Road, Baro Bagh, Mirpur 152 (Nazrul), Janata Housing Road, Baro Bagh, Mirpur 86 (Dr. Deloara House), Janata housing Road, Baro](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/5ab19ae47f8b9abc2f8cf86a/xls-view163-chowdury-bari-janata-housing-road-baro-bagh-mirpur-152-nazrul.jpg)
