Tuesday, July 08, 2014

Do chimps like to listen to African and Indian music?

©2014, Emory University.
This week an interesting study, co-authored by primatologist Frans de Waal, appeared online in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition. It was summarized in a Press Release as follows:
“While preferring silence to music from the West, chimpanzees apparently like to listen to the different rhythms of music from Africa and India, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.” 
While the first part of this summary must be wrong (the study did not present any Western music to chimpanzees, neither did any other study), the study does provide intriguing evidence for a difference in preference between West-African and North Indian music on the one hand, and Japanese taiko music and silence on the other. Chimps apparently prefer the former sounds in their environment over the latter.

The paper is framed as a critical answer to an older study by McDermott and Hauser (2007) that showed nonhuman primates (i.e., cotton-top tamarins and marmosets) to prefer slow tempos and silence over music, but dislike music overall. But are these studies also an indicator of musical preference?

Here Frans de Waal is clear and precise:
“Our objective was not to find a preference for different cultures’ music. We used cultural music from Africa, India and Japan to pinpoint specific acoustic properties. Past research has focused only on Western music and has not addressed the very different acoustic features of non-Western music. While nonhuman primates have previously indicated a preference among music choices, they have consistently chosen silence over the types of music previously tested.” 
So the different stimuli were in fact used to test a sensitivity to a complex of acoustic properties. Because if one would like to test a musical preference, one needs to know what the chimps are listening for. Is it loudness, timbre, melody, rhythm, timing, etc.

Unfortunately the stimuli are not provided online, or described in such a way that the original recordings can be traced, very much against the notion of replicability common in most empirical research. Hence, we can not listen to them for ourselves or run computer algorithms to extract the musical and/or acoustic features for comparison. We have to do with a rather crude characterization of the stimuli (For example, the 'Japanese taiko stimulus' is characterized as atonal, with undefined pitch, and 1 strong beat per 1 weak beat) and guess what the acoustical differences were. Yet another strange detail: some of the music was slowed down artificially, this to bring all stimuli in the same tempo range. A peculiar transformation that humans would readily notice (see earlier entry).

The authors themselves have an intuition on what might have caused the difference. They make the observation that Japanse taiko (like Typical Western music) has a regular beat, and it might be that this regularity is what chimpanzees dislike:
“Chimpanzees may perceive the strong, predictable rhythmic patterns as threatening, as chimpanzee dominance displays commonly incorporate repeated rhythmic sounds such as stomping, clapping and banging objects” 
Sounds reasonable, not?

Well, the experiment was not designed such that it could show that it is indeed the rhythmic structure that these chimps were attending to. In fact, there is no convincing evidence as yet that chimpanzees, or any other nonhuman primate, can actually perceive rhythmic regularity (See earlier entry).

Although it is suggested that apes (as opposed to monkeys) might have some of the neural circuitry that is needed for beat perception (Merchant & Honing, 2014), it has never been shown that any of the great apes can perceive the beat in a rhythmically varying stimulus such as music (See discussion in earlier blogs on the topic of beat induction).

What has been shown, however, is that monkeys can be sensitive to the rhythm structure or rhythmic grouping (cf. Merchant & Honing, 2014). Hence it is more likely that it is the rhythmic structure (or rhythmic grouping) that the chimpanzees use to distinguish between the musical stimuli, instead of perceived regularity: the beat. Nevertheless, it could also be any of those many other features of music that makes the difference for them: dynamic contour, timbre, note density, melodic contour, timing, etc, etc.

[See related item in Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant.]
[See related item in Psychology Today.]

ResearchBlogging.orgMingle, M., Eppley, T., Campbell, M., Hall, K., Horner, V., & de Waal, F. (2014). Chimpanzees Prefer African and Indian Music Over Silence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition DOI: 10.1037/xan0000032

ResearchBlogging.orgMerchant, H., & Honing, H. (2014). Are non-human primates capable of rhythmic entrainment? Evidence for the gradual audiomotor evolution hypothesis. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7 (274) 1-8. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2013.00274.

ResearchBlogging.orgMcDermott, J., & Hauser, M. (2007). Nonhuman primates prefer slow tempos but dislike music overall Cognition, 104 (3), 654-668 DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.011

Thursday, July 03, 2014

Interested in becoming a student assistant at MCG?

The Music Cognition Group (MCG) searches for an enthusiastic and well-organized personal assistant (PA) for the Academic Year 2014/15. For more information and detailed instructions on how to apply see here. Deadline for applications is 15 August 2014.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

How a Californian sea lion made my day

© 2014 C. Reichmuth, NMFS marine mammal research permit 14535.
Please do not use photograph without permission.

It is around 11 AM when I arrive at the Institute of Marine Sciences, Long Marine Laboratory, University of California Santa Cruz, USA. I will meet with dr Colleen Reichmuth and her team, who kindly invited me to observe some of the running audition and animal cognition experiments they do with pinnipeds. Her lab is the only one of its kind in the world, and well known for its inventive and high-quality research with sea mammals, both in the lab and in the field. 

I'm especially interested in meeting Ronan, the Californian sea lion that lives here since she was 1 year old (now being 6 years of age). She became close to a celebrity after a study that was carried out by Peter Cook at Reichmuth's lab in 2012. Unfortunately, Cook left recently for a postdoc elsewhere, so I didn't expect to see Ronan performing her amazing skills. However, Colleen Reichmuth, Jenna Lofstrom and Andrew Rouse surprised me with a demonstration of the original setup as described in Cook et al. (2013)!

While Ronan didn't perform the experiment for more than a year, she was on top of it, to say the least. The sound of a metronome at different rates – from approx. 80 to 120 BPM– was promptly picked-up and synchronized to. Within two (or max. three) metronome clicks Ronan was in sync and sticked to the beat: Performing much better than the average human, I would say. Also with real music (the Boogie Wonderland example mentioned in an earlier blog) she had little difficulty to stay in sync with the beat of the music. After seeing Ronan perform, and in addition to the carefully controlled experiments presented in the 2013 paper that were convincing by themselves, there is no doubt whatsoever that this active animal is sensitive to the explicit or induced regularities in sound and music. The intriguing question that remains is: why do we (humans) share this capability with Californian sea lions, and not with other primates that are far more closely related?

After the demonstration I was introduced to Ronan. She behaved like a rising star: patiently posing and even presenting a kiss on my cheek! A human is easily cheated..., but she made my day.

N.B. The lab is currently exploring the vocal learning capabilities of Ronan in light of the vocal learning hypothesis that suggests that only animals with this trait are capable of rhythmic entrainment (see earlier entry). However, this has never been shown in Californian sea lions (Zalophus californianus) as yet. I'm sure more exciting papers from this lab will follow soon!

See also blog at Psychology Today.

ResearchBlogging.org Cook, P., Rouse, A., Wilson, M., & Reichmuth, C. (2013). A California Sea Lion (Zalophus californianus) Can Keep the Beat: Motor Entrainment to Rhythmic Auditory Stimuli in a Non Vocal Mimic. Journal of Comparative Psychology DOI: 10.1037/a0032345 

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Nattevingerwerk? [Dutch]

NRC Handelsblad Opinie (20 mei 2014)
Afgelopen weekend verscheen er een column in het NRC met de titel Natte Vinger, via de sociale media aangekondigd als een “column over ons gretige geloof in de wetenschap” (NRC Handelsblad, 18 mei 2014). Met een aantal zaken in het stuk kan iedereen het eens zijn: het soms ten onrechte aannemen van wetenschappelijke ‘feiten’ die geen feiten zijn, bijvoorbeeld, is inderdaad betreurenswaardig. Waar het echter mis gaat is de dik aangezette teleurstelling van columnist Bas Heijne in de wetenschap zelf. Wetenschappelijke ‘feiten’ zouden nattevingerwerk zijn en ons valse, ongefundeerde hoop geven: “De hoop die de wetenschap ons biedt – het is bidden in de kerk, maar dan anders.”

Hier slaat Heijne de plank mis. Het mooie van wetenschap is nu juist dat je er niet in hoeft te geloven. Je kan de bronnen traceren, de onderbouwing checken en verifiëren, het experiment nadoen, etc. Dat Heijne teleurgesteld is als een wetenschappelijk ‘feit’ weerlegd wordt en een nieuw inzicht een eerder ‘feit’ falsificeert (onderzoekers van de Johns Hopkins universiteit lieten zien dat het antioxidant resveratrol in wijn en chocolade geen effect heeft op onze gezondheid), dan is hem de essentie van wetenschappelijk onderzoek ontgaan. Dat is jammer, want ook de journalistiek heeft een verantwoordelijkheid in het communiceren en evalueren van wetenschappelijke resultaten [zie tevens NRC Next, 3 oktober 2013]. Het pleit juist voor de wetenschap dat ze haar mening steeds weer wijzigt in het licht van nieuwe (en zelf-vergaarde) feiten; de uitkomsten zijn steeds weer te controleren. Wetenschappers die daar het handje mee lichten ondermijnen natuurlijk het vertrouwen in de wetenschap en dat is erg genoeg, maar een columnist die op grond hiervan suggereert dat wetenschap ons geen ‘evidence-based’ voortschrijdend inzicht verschaft, is ziende blind.

Henkjan Honing
Pim Levelt

[Zie NRC Handelsblad en NRC Next van 20 mei 2014]

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

What makes us musical animals? [Part 2]


Group photo of all participants (except Peter Tyack and Constance Scharff, who had to leave early) contributing to a Lorentz Workshop on Musicality in April 2014.

For me personally, it was simply a pivotal workshop. With over twenty international scientists and scholars (i.e. Judith Becker, Simon E. Fisher, Tecumseh Fitch, Bruno Gingras, Jessica Grahn, Yuko Hattori, Marisa Hoeschele, David Huron, Yukiko Kikuchi, Hugo Merchant, Bjorn Merker, Iain Morley, Ani Patel, Isabelle Peretz, Martin Rohrmeier, Constance Scharff, Carel ten Cate, Laurel Trainor, Sandra Trehub, Peter Tyack, Geraint Wiggins and Jelle Zuidema) interested in musicality, we succeeded in agreeing on a research agenda to study what makes us musical animals. A publication is expected to be out in 2015. But for now, I can only be exhilarated that this group of fine researchers share a sincere fascination for this topic. A photo impression of the workshop can be found here.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

What makes music groovy?

©20140417 Volkskrant
Today PLOS ONE will publish an interesting study on rhythm, groove and syncopation that uses an often criticized methodology: questionnaire and web-based research (cf. Honing & Reips, 2008). However, this study is a good example of how an unspectacular method (compared to brain imaging techniques, elegantly controlled experiments or advanced computational modelling) can still be quite informative.

The paper takes advantage of people's intrinsic interest in rhythm, timing and what's often called 'groove', in combination with the sheer fun of participating in an online listening experiment that has to do with music (cf. Honing & Ladinig, 2008).

Based on sixty-six responses, the authors were able to extract an inverted U-curve for a music-theoretic measure of syncopation, a shape that was absent for an alternative, information-theoretic measure based on the acoustic quality of the soundexamples used (i.e. entropy). As such the study provides evidence that the theoretical notion of syncopation, as defined by Longuet-Higgins' L-model in the 1980s, might be an important component of 'groovyness': pleasure and dance-inducing aspects of many musics ranging from James Brown to Marvin Gay and from Funkadelic to Stevie Wonder.

The first author, Maria Witek (Aarhus University), encouraged me to mention that the questionnaire and all soundexamples are online. Feel free to take part.

[See also article in de Volkskrant and interview on Radio 1; both in Dutch]

ResearchBlogging.org Witek, M., Clarke, E., Wallentin, M., Kringelbach, M., & Vuust, P. (2014). Syncopation, Body-Movement and Pleasure in Groove Music PLoS ONE, 9 (4) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094446

ResearchBlogging.org Honing, H., & Reips, U.-D. (2008). Web-based versus lab-based studies: a response to Kendall (2008). Empirical Musicology Review, 3 (2), 73-77.

ResearchBlogging.org Honing, H., & Ladinig, O. (2008). The potential of the Internet for music perception research: A comment on lab-based versus Web-based studies. Empirical Musicology Review, 3 (1), 4-7.

Thursday, April 03, 2014

What makes us musical animals?



The question that will be central in an (invitation-only) workshop that starts next week, will be: What makes us musical animals? The meeting, that is co-organised with Carel ten Cate (Leiden U), Tecumseh Fitch (U Vienna), Isabelle Peretz (U Montréal), and Sandra Trehub (U Toronto), took quite some of my attention in the weeks leading up to it and hence didn't write blog entries for a while... However, if you want to read some exiting new stuff see the references below. These are just a few examples of many recent papers that address what could be the basic components of musicality. More later.

ResearchBlogging.org Patel AD (2014). The evolutionary biology of musical rhythm: was darwin wrong? PLoS Biology, 12 (3) PMID: 24667562

ResearchBlogging.orgFitch, W. (2013). Rhythmic cognition in humans and animals: distinguishing meter and pulse perception Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 7 DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2013.00068

ResearchBlogging.orgTrehub, S. (2013). Music processing similarities between sleeping newborns and alert adults: cause for celebration or concern? Frontiers in Psychology, 4 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00644

See also some recent media attention related to this topic (In Dutch):
  1. AMC Magazine (april 2014) | Govert Schilling [Issuu]
  2. De Psycholoog (april 2014) | Geertje Kindermans [pdf]
  3. NRC Handelsblad (januari 2014) | Hendrik Spiering [pdf]

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Muziek is geen luxe... maar wat dan wel? [Dutch]

Vandaag verschijnt er een stuk in de Volkskrant (bijlage wetenschap) met als aanleiding de groeiende populariteit van het thema Muziek en het brein: de een na de andere lezing, cursus en workshop over dit onderwerp wordt aangekondigd, en enthousiaste wetenschappers weten prachtige verbanden te leggen tussen het brein en ons aller beleving van muziek. Dit alles in het kader van het Jaar van het brein.

Margreet Vermeulen vraagt zich af in het artikel: "Waarom zou muzikaliteit zijn aangeboren terwijl we best zonder kunnen - al denken veel mensen misschien van niet. Muziek heeft geen evolutionaire noodzaak, in tegenstelling tot andere plezierige zaken in het leven als eten en seks. Zonder muziek raakt de menselijke soort niet in gevaar. Waarom is muziek dan van alle culturen en alle tijden? Geen menselijke activiteit is zo alomtegenwoordig. Waarom is er vrijwel altijd muziek als mensen samenkomen om iets te vieren, te rouwen, te demonstreren en zelfs als ze ten strijde trekken? Wat doet een aria of smartlap in het brein en hoe wekken die emoties op? Worden we echt slimmer van muziek en kunnen we er ziekten mee te lijf gaan?"

Nu ziet het gros van het huidige breinonderzoek muziek vooral als een mooie toepassing: muziek zou ons slimmer maken, minder gestresst en we zouden er allerlei aandoeningen mee kunnen verhelpen. Prachtig natuurlijk, mocht dat echt zo zijn. Maar laten we vooral het omgekeerde niet vergeten: wat het brein ons over muziek en muzikaliteit kan vertellen. Dat brein is niet voor niets muzikaal...

Voor volledige artikel zie Volkskrant.

Monday, March 10, 2014

An inability to enjoy music?

Last week a number of papers appeared on musicality, music perception, and pleasure reactions while listening to music. Listeners that lack the latter are described in a paper by the group of Robert Zatorre and named music anhedonists. In a systematic study published online in Current Biology, the authors selected three groups of listeners from a large student population in Barcelona and ended up (using the Barcelona Musical reward Questionnaire) with three groups: a hyperhedonic (H-HDN), an average (HDN), and an anhedonic (ANH) group that has a self-reported low sensitivity to music (Mas-Herrero et al., 2014).

What the percentage of potential ANH listeners was in the student population is not reported, but it must be at least a few percent. So we're talking about quite a small group. The ANH group apparently can perceive (induced) emotions from music but has, as compared to the other two groups, considerably low (or no) pleasure responses to music.

While earlier studies showed that music can tap in into, or has a large overlap with the reward system that is also active for food and sex (orbitofrontal cortex, ventral striatum, amygdala, insula, and thalamus; see Sescousse et al., 2013), there might be, according to the authors, individual differences in access to the reward system. However, the nature of these differences is unclear.

In addition, this week a study was published on the musicality of non-musicians contributing to the idea that a talent for music is more wide-spread than we might generally think (Müllensiefen et al., 2014). Or to say it in other words: ‘It doesn’t devalue great poets, writers, and orators to say that every human is a user of language, nor does it devalue great musicians to acknowledge that all humans are inherently musical.’ (Erin Hannon on Facebook, 2008).

More on these studies in NRC, Volkskrant and Wetenschap24 [Dutch].

ResearchBlogging.orgMas-Herrero, E., Zatorre, R., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., & Marco-Pallarés, J. (2014). Dissociation between Musical and Monetary Reward Responses in Specific Musical Anhedonia. Current Biology. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.01.068

ResearchBlogging.orgMüllensiefen, D., Gingras, B., Musil, J., & Stewart, L. (2014). The Musicality of Non-Musicians: An Index for Assessing Musical Sophistication in the General Population. PLoS ONE, 9 (2) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089642

ResearchBlogging.orgSescousse, G., Caldú, X., Segura, B., & Dreher, J. (2013). Processing of primary and secondary rewards: A quantitative meta-analysis and review of human functional neuroimaging studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37 (4), 681-696 DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.02.002