Rhythm in joint action: psychological and neurophysiological mechanisms for real-time interpersonal coordination

Keller, Peter E.; Novembre, Giacomo; Hove, Michael J.

doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0394

Cited by 314 publications

(333 citation statements)

References 160 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

319

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the power of beta band (∼20 Hz) oscillations in both auditory and motor regions fluctuates at the tempo of the auditory rhythm and reflects temporal prediction (53)(54)(55). These oscillatory activities might also play a role in the prediction of the intentions and actions of others (21,56,57).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Body sway reflects leadership in joint music performance

Chang

Livingstone

Bosnyak

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

117

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cultural and technological achievements of the human species depend on complex social interactions. Nonverbal interpersonal coordination, or joint action, is a crucial element of social interaction, but the dynamics of nonverbal information flow among people are not well understood. We used joint music making in string quartets, a complex, naturalistic nonverbal behavior, as a model system. Using motion capture, we recorded body sway simultaneously in four musicians, which reflected real-time interpersonal information sharing. We used Granger causality to analyze predictive relationships among the motion time series of the players to determine the magnitude and direction of information flow among the players. We experimentally manipulated which musician was the leader (followers were not informed who was leading) and whether they could see each other, to investigate how these variables affect information flow. We found that assigned leaders exerted significantly greater influence on others and were less influenced by others compared with followers. This effect was present, whether or not they could see each other, but was enhanced with visual information, indicating that visual as well as auditory information is used in musical coordination. Importantly, performers' ratings of the "goodness" of their performances were positively correlated with the overall degree of body sway coupling, indicating that communication through body sway reflects perceived performance success. These results confirm that information sharing in a nonverbal joint action task occurs through both auditory and visual cues and that the dynamics of information flow are affected by changing group relationships.leadership | joint action | music performance | body sway | Granger causality C oordinating actions with others in time and space-joint action-is essential for daily life. From opening a door for someone to conducting an orchestra, periods of attentional and physical synchrony are required to achieve a shared goal. Humans have been shaped by evolution to engage in a high level of social interaction, reflected in high perceptual sensitivity to communicative features in voices and faces, the ability to understand the thoughts and beliefs of others, sensitivity to joint attention, and the ability to coordinate goal-directed actions with others (1-3). The social importance of joint action is demonstrated in that simply moving in synchrony with another increases interpersonal affiliation, trust, and/or cooperative behavior in infants and adults (e.g., refs. 4-9). The temporal predictability of music provides an ideal framework for achieving such synchronous movement, and it has been hypothesized that musical behavior evolved and remains adaptive today because it promotes cooperative social interaction and joint action (10-12). Indeed music is used in important situations where the goal is for people to feel a social bond, such as at religious ceremonies, weddings, funerals, parties, sporting events, political rallies, and in the military...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Body sway reflects leadership in joint music performance

Chang

Livingstone

Bosnyak

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

117

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An important question to ask, moving forward, is what specific hypotheses are generated by this conception of a vertical hierarchy of models, organized around timescales and degrees of abstraction. Psychologists interested in music perception have been alert to the importance of anticipation for many years (Keller, Novembre & Hove 2014), so the emphasis on prediction (i.e. anticipation) is not itself new.…”

Section: Music In the Predictive Brainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Apply a Hierarchical Predictive Processing Framework to Music Perception and Performance?

Michael

Wolf

2015

EMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this commentary, we examine Schaefer's proposal to apply a hierarchical predictive processing (HPP) framework to research on music perception and music performance. As we shall see, this proposal raises the possibility of enriching this research area with new theoretical and empirical resources from further afield. In order to tap the potential of such a project, it will be important to work towards the formulation of hypotheses that are uniquely generated by the HPP framework. We attempt to contribute to this project by specifying explanatory resources within the HPP framework that are well-suited to formulating such hypotheses, by articulating several novel questions that are generated by the attempt to apply the HPP framework to musical perception and performance, and by identifying potential challenges for such a project to address. We also provide reasons to expect that the HPP framework may be especially fruitful in the context of joint (musical) action.Submitted 2014 December 11; accepted 2014 December 23. KEYWORDS: music perception, predictive coding, embodied cognition, joint actionIN an upcoming article in this special issue, Schaefer (2014) demonstrates how a hierarchical predictive processing (HPP) framework can be drawn upon to create an illuminating new perspective upon music perception and music performance. Such a perspective makes it possible to give fresh answers to old questions, to establish novel connections among apparently disparate themes and research areas, and to raise stimulating new questions for further research. Moreover, as Schaefer emphasizes, the framework is also appealing for broad theoretical reasons -in particular, it is well-positioned to integrate core insights animating embodied cognition approaches (such as the interconnectedness of cognition, action and perception), while at the same time retaining a focus on the internal models that enable music listeners and performers to anticipate and to synchronize with musical patterns, and to coordinate with others in producing music. In this brief commentary, we will home in on a few of the central themes of Schaefer's article, and attempt to identify several ways in which those themes may fruitfully be articulated further. Let's begin by recalling the basic outline of Schaefer's approach. MUSIC IN THE PREDICTIVE BRAINAt the core of the HPP framework is the idea of a hierarchy of models (for comprehensive accounts, see Hohwy 2013; Clark 2013; Friston 2012. Lower-level models predict changes in sensory input at short timescales, while higher-level models predict changes occurring over longer timescales, namely by representing more abstract causes of the changes in sensory input. Models at hierarchically different levels constrain each other through the dynamics of prediction error minimization: each model generates predictions about the representations at the immediately subordinate level; these predictions are compared with the actual state of the subordinate-level model; a prediction error is returned to the superor...

show abstract

“…Like the FRN, the ERN has a frontocentral scalp distribution; however, the ERN is elicited by response errors (e.g., incorrect movements) and peaks approximately 80 msec after the error has occurred. 1 Both the ERN and the FRN are thought to reflect action-monitoring processes that are elicited by the first indication that an action is incorrect, whether this arises from internal information (incorrect movement, eliciting an ERN) or external information (feedback about the action outcome, eliciting an FRN; Stahl, 2010;Holroyd & Coles, 2002).…”

Section: Action Monitoring During Joint Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%