Advertisement

Communication in Orchestra Playing as Measured with Granger Causality

  • Alessandro D’ausilio
  • Leonardo Badino
  • Yi Li
  • Sera Tokay
  • Laila Craighero
  • Rosario Canto
  • Yiannis Aloimonos
  • Luciano Fadiga
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 78)

Abstract

Coordinated action between music orchestra performance, driven by a conductor, is a remarkable instance of interaction/communication. However, a rigorous testing of inter-individual coordination in an ecological scenario poses a series of technical problems. Here we recorded violinists’ and conductor’s movements kinematics in an ecological interactive scenario. We searched for directed influences between conductor and musicians and among musicians by using the Granger Causality method. Our results quantitatively show the dynamic pattern of communication among conductors and musicians. Interestingly, we found evidence that the aesthetic appreciation of music orchestras’ performance is based on the concurrent increase of conductor-to-musicians causal influence and reduction of musician-to-musician information flow.

Keywords

communication action coordination joint action neuroscience of music music performance movement kinematics Granger causality neuroaesthetic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rizzolatti, G., Craighero, L.: The mirror-neuron system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 27, 169–192 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Couzin, I.D., Krause, J., Franks, N.R., Levin, S.A.: Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature 433(7025), 513–516 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frith, C.D.: Social cognition. Philos Trans. R Soc. Lond B Biol. Sci. 363(1499), 2033–2039 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grafton, S.T., Hamilton, A.F.: Evidence for a distributed hierarchy of action representation in the brain. Hum. Mov. Sci. 26(4), 590–616 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Newman-Norlund, R.D., van Schie, H.T., van Zuijlen, A.M., Bekkering, H.: The mirror neuron system is more active during complementary compared with imitative action. Nat. Neurosci. 10(7), 817–818 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rands, S.A., Cowlishaw, G., Pettifor, R.A., Rowcliffe, J.M., Johnstone, R.A.: Spontaneous emergence of leaders and followers in foraging pairs. Nature 423(6938), 432–434 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., Knoblich, G.: Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. Trends. Cogn. Sci. 10(2), 70–76 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Geweke, J.: Measurement of linear dependence and feedback between multiple time series. J. Am. Stat. Ass. 77, 304–313 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Granger, C.W.J.: Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37, 424–438 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Münte, T.F., Altenmüller, E., Jäncke, L.: The musician’s brain as a model of neuroplasticity. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3(6), 473–478 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Science, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro D’ausilio
    • 1
  • Leonardo Badino
    • 1
  • Yi Li
    • 2
  • Sera Tokay
    • 3
  • Laila Craighero
    • 4
  • Rosario Canto
    • 1
    • 4
  • Yiannis Aloimonos
    • 2
  • Luciano Fadiga
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.RBCSItalian Institute of TechnologyGenovaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MarylandUSA
  3. 3.Şişli Symphony OrchestraIstanbulTurkey
  4. 4.DSBTAUniversity of FerraraFerraraItaly

Personalised recommendations