Icmpc 12 earworm talk- Lassi Liikkanen

From characterization to
understanding involuntary
musical imagery

Lassi “Al” Liikkanen
ICMPC-ESCOM 2012
Helsinki Institute for
26.7.2012. Information Technology
Aalto University & University of Helsinki
Finland

Congratulations!
C t l ti !
For all present in the world’s first scientific assembly on research on
involuntary musical imagery, or earworms.

Wishing a great start for INMI
researchers!

Understanding Involuntary Musical Imagery
ICMPC-ESCOM 2012 Lassi.Liikkanen@Hiit.fi
27.7.2012 http://hiit.fi/lassial #lassial 2

This talk:
• Music in Mind 2007 study
– Background
– Central findings
• Work in progress and future work
p g

Understanding Involuntary Musical Imagery 3
27.7.2012 http://hiit.fi/lassial #lassial

Music in Mind 2007:
Findings published
• Liikkanen L (2012) Musical Activities
L.
Predispose to Involuntary Musical Imagery.
Psychology of Music 40(2) 236-256.
236 256.
– ICMPC 2008
• Liikkanen L (2012) Inducing involuntary
L.
musical imagery: an experimental study.
Musicae Scientiae 16(2) 217 234
217-234.
– ESCOM 2009


MiM 2007: background
• Design inspired by Kellaris 2001
2001,
2003 and Bennett, 2003
• Intention to replicate in a
g
generalizable way y


MiM 2007: study concept
• Web-based data administration and
Web based
collection
• “Experiential” web survey design


Understanding Involuntary Musical Imagery
27.7.2012 http://hiit.fi/lassial #lassial 7

MiM 2007: recruitment
• 3 months online 3 record store
online,
certificates raffled
• From university, through email
referencingg
– Before Facebook


Results: Participants N % Music listening frequency N %
All respondents 12519 4.9 % Never 38 0.3 %
Qualified respondents 11910 95.1 % Seldom 10 0.1 %
Monthly or less frequent 183 1.5
15%
Sex Weekly, not daily 1678 14.1 %
Women 8144 68.4 % Daily, < 2 hours 3437 28.9 %
Men 3766 31.6 % Daily, 2-6 h 5269 44.2 %
Daily > 6 h 1295 10.9 %
Age Average
g g 27.8 years
y
St. Dev. 8.48 years Activities: playing, singing or composing music
Never 4250 35.7 %
Age groups (N=11904) Seldom 190 1.6 %
< 25 y 4822 40.5 % Monthly or less frequent 1521 12.8 %
25 - 30 y 4154 34.9 % Weekly, not daily
y y 3173 26.6 %
31 - 40 y 1892 15.9 % Daily, < 2 hours 2015 16.9 %
> 40 y 1036 8.7 % Daily, 2-6 h 700 5.9 %
Daily > 6 h 61 0.5 %
Handedness (N=11887)
Right 10633 89.5 % Length of active musical training in the past
Left 818 6.9 % None 3767 31.6 %
Ambidexterous 436 3.7 % < 1 year 2264 19.0 %
1-3 years 2931 24.6 %
University staff or students 3795 31.9 % 4-10 years 1242 10.4 %
Hearing defect, neurological 910 7.6 % 10-15 years 558 4.7 %
disorder, CNS medication >15 years 1148 9.6 %


Part I: Characterizing
• How common is INMI what
INMI,
influences its frequency and what is
the experience alike?


Frequency of INMI experiences
35%
91% of respondents
Men (N=3766)
*
30%
at least weekly
dents

Women (N=8144)
of all respond

25%

20%
33% 33% 33% 32%
15%
Proportion o

27%
24% *
10%

5%
*
7%
5% 3% 2% 0% 0%
0%
Several times a day Every day Weekly Monthly More seldom Never


What influences INMI
frequency? Partial correlations
Variable ρ p N
Practice activity 0.233 < .001 11904
Listening activity 0.188 < .001 11899
Length of musical practice * 0.036 .001 8608
Age -0.099 < .001 11899
Self-assessed musicality 0.148 < .001 2968
Ease of foreign pronounciation 0.119 < .001 2968
Portable music player 0.022 >.05 2968
*excluding musicians

Controlling for music practice, listening, length of practice, and age group


Phemenology
100%
Non‐musician female
90%
Musician female
80%
ndendts

Non‐musican male
70%
Musician male
of all respon

60%
50%
91% 92% 91% 91%
40% 79% 77% 76% 75% 80% 80%
Proportion o

69% 70%
30%
49%
20% 34% 31%
33%
P

25%
10% 16% 16%
9%
0%
Unfamiliar, novel
Unfamiliar, novel Instrumental music Music sang in native Music sang in foreign Familiar, previously
Instrumental music Music sang in native Music sang in foreign Familiar, previously
music (N=2967) (N=11845) language (N=11855) language (N=11857) head music (N=2970)


Part I
• More results in the POM paper
– Comparison to Semantic Involuntary
memories
– Details about the phenomenology


Part II:
Induction experiment
• QQuestions:
ti
1. Can you evoke INMI experiences
y p
with an experimental manipulation?
2.
2 Is an earworm just a temporal
extension of external stimulus?


Greene (1986) J. Exp. Psy: LMC

Hypotheses
• Recency hypothesis
relevant to INMI
a) “the most recent” cf
the recent cf.
recency effect
b) Longer term recency
~ repeated musical
p
priming


Experimental method
• INMI i d ti using a cued-recall
induction i d ll
musical imagery task
– Variation of musical image scanning
task (Halpern, 1988)
( p )


Method
• 5 song lyric completion tasks
• “Obla di, obla da, …”
• “Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer…”


Experimental Setup
• (most-) Recency manipulation:
(most )
• Order of song cues
• Long-term recency manipulation
– 2 sets of song cues: contemporary vs.
classics
• Controlling for song familiarity
– Open ended
Open-ended
• INMI Probe after a distractor task


Induction results
Percent of participants reporting INMI
80.0 %
68.2
68 2 % Cued
70.0 % song
60.0 % Other
49.7 % song
50.0 %
None
40.0 %
32.0 %
30.0 %
18.6 % 18.3 %
20.0 % 13.2 %
10.0
10 0 %

0.0 %
Exp. 1 Contemporary (N=991) Exp. 2 Classics (N=6524)


Recency effect
35%
Average hit rate
30%

25%
INM probability

20%
MI

15%

10%

5%
1 2 3 4 5
Serial position


Central findings from MM2007
in brief:
1.
1 Establishing the wide
acknowledgment of the INMI
phenomenon
2. Observing some regularities in the
g g
frequency of INMI
* Replicating earlier findings


Central findings cont
cont.
3.
3 Witnessing considerable inter-
inter
individual variation
4. Demonstrating the bias for
experiencing contemporary songs
p g p y g
as INMI
5.
5 Songs causing INMI vary a lot


Current and Future work

ICMPC-ESCOM 2012
26.7.2012.

ICMPC-ESCOM Proc. paper
Proc
• Content analysis of MM2007
open ended answers
– M S i Silf b
Ms. Suvi Silfverberg (MA)
• Focusing on implications of
g p
INMI
• 1229 open ended responses
open-ended
without particular focus


INMI and Social life
• Categories of findings:
• Collective contagion
– Intentional & susceptibility
• Locus of social attention
– Unwanted


Read more from the
Proceedings
• Available from the internet


Future work
• Earworm clinic in Facebook
https://apps.facebook.com/earwormclinic/


Future themes
• Prevention & coping strategies
• Parallels to clinical phenomena
• Implications to life outside your head
• Theory of How and Why


Theoretical questions:
What is it?
• Can we reduce it to
to…
• Expectations?
• Mind-pops or ISMs?
• Obsessions?
• Is it epiphenomenal
– What if we could stop it?


My expectations
• To move from characterization
to understanding involuntary musical
imagery


Answer three questions:
o What is INMI?
o Why is INMI?
oHHow t stop INMI?
to t


Thank you!
• Lassi Liikkanen@Hiit fi
Lassi.Liikkanen@Hiit.fi
http://hiit.fi/lassial
#lassial

https://apps.facebook.com/earwormclinic/
http://tinyurl.com/INMIworld
p y


Icmpc 12 earworm talk- Lassi Liikkanen

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen (20)

Icmpc 12 earworm talk- Lassi Liikkanen