BACHELOR THESIS
Music Perception through Localized
Tactile Input
What Parameters of Musical Pieces are Perceived when Delivered via
Localized Tactile Input
Abraham Kourieh
2014
Bachelor of Arts
Audio Engineering
Luleå University of Technology
Department of Arts, Communication and Education
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
Music perception through
localized tactile input
!!
!!
!
______________________________________________
What parameters of musical pieces are perceived when
delivered via localized tactile input
Bachelor Thesis 15/5 - 2014
!
Abraham Kourieh
!
!
Abstract!
!!
Can music be experienced without it being heard audibly? Musicians and listeners talk about
feeling the music or music’s feel but what are these feelings? One way to isolate this part of the
musical experience is to consider: what musical parameters can be detected and perceived if
musical pieces only where delivered via localized tactile input to one hand? This essay focuses on
tactile perception of recorded music, when it can only be physically felt. An experiment with
experienced musician subjects where asked to report in writing on experiences of musical pieces
being delivered only tactically to their hand. Results show that multiple musical parameters such
as pulse, dynamics and expression are indeed possible to extract and perceive. Results also
show that other parameters such as pitch, harmony & form are harder to extract even though it
still is possible to partially perceive it. The reasons for these difficulties and other phenomena are
discussed. !
!
Table of contents
!!
1. Introduction!
5!
2. Background!
5!
2.1 Bone conduction!
5!
2.2 Tactile input!
6!
2.3 Visual input!
7!
2.4 Infant rhythm perception!
7!
2.5 Tactile devices!
8!
3. Aim!
8!
4. Method !
8!
4.1 The stimulus!
9!
4.2 Pretest!
10!
4.3 The questionnaire!
10!
4.4 The test subjects !
10!
4.5 The test !
12!
4.6 The data!
12!
5. Results!
13!
5.1 Stimuli 1 - ”La Primavera” (Spring): III!
13!
5.2 Stimuli 2 - ”Fairytale Lullaby”!
14!
5.3 Stimuli 3 - ”This Love”!
16!
5.4 Stimuli 4 - ”Born In The U.S.A”!
17!
6. Discussion!
22!
7. Summary!
25!
8. Future work!
25!
9. References!
26!
10. Appendix!
27
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
!!
1. Introduction!
!We often hear musicians and artists talk about
”feeling” music. The phenomenon of ”feeling”
music is most likely a very important part of
the experience. But what are these feelings?
Is it the direct result of what we hear? Or do
they come from something else? I first started
to think about the topic of feeling music after
meeting a friend of mine who is totally deaf
since birth. Obviously this means that he has
never heard music the way a normal hearing
person has, but this does not mean he has
never experienced music. He told me he could
place his hand on a speaker, a speaker
mounted in a car door for instance, and he not
only felt the music, he could actually
recognize songs that was playing. He also told
me he had a couple of favorite songs that he
especially liked. He could easily recognize and
point out these songs just by placing his hand
on one of the speakers. !Evelyn Glennie, a professional percussionist
who also is deaf, learned to perceive audio
and especially rhythms in music so well that
she sustains a full-time career as a solo
percussionist [1]. She writes: ”Hearing is
basically a specialized form of touch. Sound is
simply vibrating air which the ear picks up and
converts to electrical signals, which are then
interpreted by the brain. The sense of hearing
is not the only sense that are able to do this,
touch can do this too” [2]. !Both of these stories points in the direction
that even though they are deaf, they can still
perceive, experience and even play music by
”feeling” it. Bone conduction [3] and localized
tactile input [4] are two types of sensory input
that may impact the music experience. Bone
conduction is when sound waves are
transmitted to the inner ear through bones of
the skull. Visual input [5] is possibly another
factor. For example when we see people’s
physical gestures. This example could help
perceiving and/or synchronizing to a rhythm. !The research reviewed in the background
indicates that my friend and Evelyn Glennie
can ”feel” and perceive music due to at least
one of the non audible inputs but rather in
other forms physical input. This suggests that
the term ”feeling” music is not only about
emotion but also has physical components. If
we understand these interactions among
these different types of input better, in the
future, we may be in a better position to Luleå University of Technology
!!
enhance musical experiences for hearing and
non-hearing listeners of music. But first, we
must have a better understanding of what
musical parameters can be perceived through
non-auditory modes of perception or
enhanced by multi-modal perception: What
musical parameters can be perceived through
touch alone?
!
2. Background!
2.1 Bone conduction
Georg Békésy is famous for his studies on the
human ear and all the hearing functions that
we have as humans. He did a lot of study on
bone conduction at Harvard University in
1948. In a study in which he examined cases
of partial deafness, the aim was to be able to
dispense with the masking noise that is used
to measure hearing thresholds. The masking
noise would be played to the ear that was not
measured. The way to do this is: find a way to
reduce cross-hearing. !Cross-hearing is a when sound is transferred
from one ear via bone conduction to the other
ear. To come to a conclusion in finding a way
to eliminate cross-hearing, different tests was
conducted on the human skull, skin, some
head-phones and also a couple of different
earplugs. !The first part on the research was to test the
skin on the forehead and skull to measure
different specifications in vibrations on the
human head. The first measurement was done
by pressing a vibration pick-up on the
forehead with 3 kg of pressure. This would
then tell the frictional and elastic constants of
the skin. !What also was important to the research was
determining the resonant frequency of the
head, which could be made by phase
observations.
!Next a test on vibrations of the human head in
a free sound field was done. This was difficult
to measure because the pick-up is not only
registering vibration of the skull but also the
vibrations in the air by airborne sound. This
problem was partially solved with an equation
which would part the airborne sound and the
vibrations of the skull. Also to further improve
15/5 - 2014
5
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
the measurements, an electromagnetic pickup characterized by high sensitivity for
vibrations and low sensitivity for airborne
sounds was used.
!The results of the tests increased the
knowledge of bone conduction in several
different ways and by analyzing these, the
author could come to the conclusion that the
best way to minimize cross-hearing and to
achieve maximum insulation is made possible
with a special cushioned phone that is directly
inserted in the ear canal [3]. !One result of this study is that it indicates that
audio travels and resonates internally in the
body. In turn, this suggests that it could be a
factor in physically sensing audio. It also
shows that different body parts resonates
differently, which could suggest that
depending on what body part is receiving
audio input, musical parameter perception
could be easier or harder.
2.2 Tactile input
In a study by authors Huang, Gamble,
Sarnlertsophon, Wang and Hsiao, an
experiment is conducted on how selected
musicians perceive music through both
auditory and tactile input. The purpose of the
test is basically to investigate when humans
perform a musical task, to what degree
auditory and tactile inputs are integrated.
”Music is distinguished by the delicate
temporal processing of the sequence of notes
that give rise to rhythm, tempo and meter,
which is the focus of this study” [4] !Two psychophysical phenomena are observed
— audition and tactility. A custom-built motortechnology and standard-model consumer
head-phones are used in parts of the research
one at the time and in other sub-tests,
functioning together in delivering both stimuli
through the finger touch pad and through
earphones. It is also thought to be the first
results demonstrating cross-modal sensory
grouping.
!The device used for delivering the tactile
stimuli is a circular (8 mm) contact connected
to a motor. The motor was built in to an
aluminum frame which was placed in a soundattenuation chamber, making it inaudible even
without wearing the headphones.
The authors conduct a series of tests in which
both unimodal, various combinations of
bimodal and also simultaneously presented
Luleå University of Technology
bimodal meter cues and inputs of musical
rhythm. The experiment had twelve healthy
musically trained participants with normal
hearing and tactile sensation. The participants
where tested for their ability to perceive meter
and performed well which would make the
test results accurate. Prior to the experiment,
an especially designed software was created
to be able to do a workable testing with the
four different sub-experiments. The auditory
stimuli could be heard by a set of headphones
and the tactile stimuli where delivered to the
left index finger by a circular contact
connected to a motor which was inaudible
even with the headphones off. !The experiment mixes different meter-
recognition tasks in four sub-tests, in two of
the sub-tests ”duple” rhythms are used and in
the other two, ”triple” rhythms are used. The
stimulus where delivered through different
modalities in the various sub tests. For
example, in two of the sub-tests, stimuli is
delivered only tactilly or auditory. Then a multimodal input is delivered with parts of the
stimuli sent via the headphones and the other
part is sent tactilly. And lastly stimuli is
delivered simultaneously to both. !The authors come to a series of different
conclusions from these four sub experiments.
Under unimodal conditions, subjects can
perceive the implied meter pattern at an
average accuracy rate of approximately 82%
auditory and 75% tactile. And when
sequences where presented bimodal, subjects
were able to clearly perceive the stimulus
meter. The authors believe as results
demonstrate that when both auditory and
tactile input are present, the subjects does for
the most parts group them. However the most
important conclusion they come to, is that
notes from audition has a significantly larger
influence on meter perception than when
presented tactually, indicating that audition
pays a more dominant role in meter
perception.
!This article was inspiration for the experiment
conducted in this essay, their research
showed that it is possible to deliver stimulus
to the subjects via localize tactile input and
the importance of making the motor inaudible.
It also shows that audition has a more
dominant role which helped understanding the
overall concept of localized tactile input. The
multi-sensory grouping described in the article
is a very interesting aspect but due to
resource limitations in this essay, this was not
studied at all.
15/5 - 2014
6
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
2.3 Visual input
In 2006, Phillips-silver and Trainor investigated
the auditory encoding of rhythmic movement.
Jessica Phillips-Silver has done much
research on music and dance and how it
shapes our brains even from early years of life.
In the paper they show that the way adults
move their bodies, influences their auditory
perception of rhythm structures [5]. Four experiments where conducted and in
three of them, the task was to train the
participants to move their bodies in form of
bending their knees while listening to an
ambiguous rhythm with no accented beats.
This was a way of interpreting the rhythms
either as a march or a waltz. And then a test
which was done directly after training — the
participants task was to identify as similar a
auditory version of the rhythm pattern with
accented strong beat that matched the
previous training and bouncing experience in
comparison with a version who did not match. !The training period went on for two minutes
and repeated the rhythm 63 times. After four
repetitions a ”micro-beat” (slapstick timbre)
was added 10 dB lower and the combination
resulted in a six-beat sequence with a snare
drum sounding on the first beat, followed by
five of the slapstick beats. And the training
procedure was that the subject stood between
two speakers, facing an experimenter. The
movement itself was a gentle bouncing up
and down by bending the knees at specified
beats. The subjects hand would rest on top of
the experimenters extended hand and the
subject was requested to mirror her
movement. Subjects were assigned to one of
two movement conditions in training, Either
duple movements (bouncing occurred on
every second beat 1, 3, and 5) or the triple
movements (bouncing occurred on every third
beat 1, and 4) while the training stimulus was
identical in both.
!Immediately following the training, the subject
was given a two alternative choice task. The
subject was told to choose the sound that
matched what they heard during training but
were never instructed to choose sound based
on their movement experiment, thus the task
can be a measure of whether the subjects
representation of the pattern was biased by
the moving experience. !There where some differences between the
experiments, the second experiment was
identical to the first one except that the
subjects listened over headphones during
Luleå University of Technology
training. The third experiment was also
identical to the first except that the subject
wore a blind-fold during training. And in the
fourth experiment the subject sat still and only
observed the experimenters movements. !In the sub sequent experiments it was showed
that this effect did not depend on visual
information, however the movement of the
body was critical. Also parallel results from
adults and infants suggests that movement
and sound interactions develops in an early age.
2.4 Infant rhythm perception
Jessica Phillips-Silver and Laurel J. Trainor
also did research on how movement
influences infant rhythm perception. ”People
in all cultures move their bodies to the
rhythms of music, whether drumming, singing,
dancing, or rocking an infant” [7] . Few studies
have examined auditory-vestibular
interactions. The vestibular system is a part of
the inner-ear that together with the cochlea
contributes to balance and spatial orientation.
However it is known that movement of the
body involves motor, proprioceptive,
vestibular, visual and auditory systems [6]. !The way people is able to feel and interpret
the strong and weak beats of a rhythm allows
them to move and dance in time to the music.
For example, this can be made easier by
playing the strong beat louder or longer or
even both. However how we move may
influence what is heard. Similar to the previous
paper where body movements of adults where
tested, in this paper, training was done on 7month-olds by having them listen to a 2minute repetition of an ambiguous rhythm
(without accented beats) pattern. Half of the
infants was bounced on every second beat,
and the other half on every third beat. ”And
directly after training infants’ listening
preferences were tested for two auditory
versions of the rhythm pattern” [6]. In the two
versions, intensity accents was included on
either every second (duple pattern) or on
every third beat (triple pattern). Same exact
test was also done with the infants’
blindfolded. And in the third sub-experiment
the infants simply watched the experimenter
bounce the same way without moving. !During the testing itself, the experimenter
would observe the infant at the same time as
the test stimulus was played. Two different
stimulus was played back: one with strong
accented beats that matched the same beats
15/5 - 2014
7
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
!
of which they where bounced on during
training, and one other that simply did not
match. 3. Aim!
!The study did come to a series of conclusions: !
From the research described above we gain
first, when the infant heard the matching
stimulus during testing it would choose to
listen longer to it. And with blindfold, same
phenomenon occurred. Showing that the
bouncing had the same effect even when the
infant couldn’t see at all. In the third subexperiment though, when the infant only
observed the experimenter bounce, It did not
show any preference for the two auditory
version of the test stimulus during testing. In conclusion, Phillips-silver and Trainors
studies strongly indicated the strong multisensory connection between movement of the
body and auditory rhythm processing. It also
provided evidence that body movement plays
an important role in musical rhythm
perception. In addition it also showed that
visual input of movement did not help
perceiving the rhythm pattern. Lastly,
evidence is provided in these studies that
even at early age, rhythms can be perceived
and detected. !This research indicates that visual input of
movement did not help perceiving rhythms
that allowed the visual factor to be ruled out of
the research and experiment conducted in this
essay. 2.5 Tactile devices
With the new knowledge we can seek ways to
enhance and improve the experience of music
for both normal hearing and deaf audiences.
For example: when visiting the cinema or
theaters, subwoofers under the seats are
sometimes used but other, perhaps better
solutions could be applied. Could we use
some sort of vibrating device or devices that
attaches to fingers, hands, stomach, chest,
legs etc? Would this increase the experience
the same way as when drummers use
”kickers” attached to drum stools that vibrate
non-audibly and increases the sensation of
powerful low frequency ”kicking” but without
any sound coming out of it at all. [11]
!If some sort of product of this sort would be
tested and introduced, this could also mean that the actual sound pressure level of a movie
at the cinema or a play at the theatre could be
lowered, but with sustaining the sensation of
power and impact of the audio on the body
that you potentially could get at a rockconcert for example.
Luleå University of Technology
knowledge about non-audible input and how it
affects us but there is still much more to be
researched. For example: How much of a
musical piece can be perceived by localized
tactile input alone? The aim for this essay is to
investigate: What instruments can be
perceived and which musical parameters are
easiest to detected when delivered only via
localized tactile input?
!
4. Method !
!To answer the original question — what
musical parameters are detectable, an
experiment was conducted in an attempt to a
certain extent simulate some of the factors
that allowed my friend to recognize songs and
experience the music without being able to
hear it. The method was also inspired by
previous experiments that delivered tactile
signals. The availability of kickers further
inspired to an experiment where a better
understanding on what musical parameters
that can be perceived when delivered through
localized tactile input alone is researched.
!For the experiment, a vibrations motor (Brüel
& Kjær LDS V201), was used. In this essay, it
will be referred to as a ”shaker”. The shaker is
capable to create vibrations in frequencies
between 5-13,000 Hz according to the
manufacturer [8] !In addition, a wooden frame with a 6 mm thin
plywood surface suspended with elastic
fishing-thread has been built. The shaker is
then putting the surface in motion via a metal
screw and a rubber-plate which can be felt by
placing the hand on the other side of the
surface. This way musical pieces can be
played to the surface. The stimulus where
delivered via a laptop computer through a
sound-card to the amplifier that powers the
shaker. !The surface is 16 cm wide and 22 cm long
fitting an average sized adult hand. !Also, isolating headphones (Vic Firth SIH1) are
used in the experiment for two main reasons.
Partly to reduce the amount of noise that can
be heard from the shaker when vibrating, and
also to play back a room-tone to the subject
while executing the experiment. The idea is
15/5 - 2014
8
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
simply to further mask the shakers noise.
According to the manufacturer the
headphones ”reduces overall noise levels by
24 decibels”. [9] !This is the selection of musical pieces:
!
!
Stimuli 1:
!Anne Akiko Meyers & The English
Chamber Orchestra performing:
Vivaldi - The Four Seasons; Concerto
No. 1 in E major, Op. 8, RV 259, ”La
Primavera” (Spring): III. Danza
Pastorale (2014)
!This track was chosen because it is a
very famous classical piece with very
wide spectral range and large
dynamics. The pulse and rhythms are
complex and not very easy identified.
Basically this musical piece will stand
out from the others and contribute to
a good variation of songs.
!
!
Stimuli 2:
!Bombay Bicycle Club performing:
Fig 1. The wooden frame, surface and shaker
!The room-tone is delivered by the
headphones to dispense with the eventual
sensation of sonic vacuum and to mask the
noise of the shaker. The room-tone is
recorded in the same room as the experiment
is performed with a dummy head binaural
stereo microphone (Neumann KU 100) [10]
and then played back during the experiment
through the isolating headphones that the
subjects are wearing. !In addition, to be completely certain that no
vibrations are able to be heard by the
subjects, a piece of absorbent cloth is put on
top of the wooden frame during the test.
4.1 The stimulus
Four musical pieces where selected for the
experiment. The aim when choosing stimulus
was to select pieces that would be varied in
dynamics, spectral parameters, genre,
loudness and expression. And also to select
songs that the majority of subjects would
possibly recognize and hopefully even be able
to point out knowing which track and artist it
is.
!The digital file is played through Logic Pro X,
then channeled trough the sound-cards
analog output to the shaker. The tracks were
summed to mono before delivered to the
shaker, the format of the file is Ogg Vorbis 320
kbps.
Luleå University of Technology
”Fairytale Lullaby” from the album
”Flaws” (2010)
!This piece was chosen because it is not
performed with a usual ”rockinstrumentation”. The song is buoyant, guitar
and vocal-based which makes it different from
the other stimulus. It does have percussive
instruments and a steady pulse but is not rich
in the low frequency spectra.
!
Stimuli 3:
!Maroon 5 performing: ”This Love” from the
album ”Songs About Jane” (2002)
!This song is chosen because it is a very
famous pop-song with very marked drum &
bass rhythms that the subjects may recognize
and be able to point out. Also the song is uptempo and has a very subtle pulse. !
Stimuli 4:
!Bruce Springsteen performing: ”Born In The
U.S.A.” from the album ”Born In The
U.S.A.” (1984)
This piece is chosen because it is a famous
classic song with a very clear form and buildup. The song is also chosen for not having
excessive low-frequency content which may
mask information in the song when delivered
15/5 - 2014
9
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
tactically. With this classic-rock song the
stimulus is now also varied in genre.
make sure that the subjects where musicians
and where comfortable and experienced in
analyzing musical parameters which was
critical in the experiment. The subjects where
told what the experiment was about. 4.2 Pretest
When the device was tested and performed in
a satisfying manner, a pilot-test was set up.
Four subjects, all of which third-year sound
engineer students, completed the pilot-test. A
pilot-test was necessary for a couple of
reasons:
!The different stimulus had different loudness
measures and dynamics which meant that the
levels could not be set the same for all of
them. In the pilot test, the subjects where
asked to set the level for each stimuli so it was
as loud as possible but without it being
audible at all. The levels set by all of the four
pilot test subjects, was collected and
analyzed, then a mean was calculated for
every stimuli to later set all the levels for the
experiment.
!In the second part of the pilot-test after
setting the levels and ensuring the stimulus
was not audible, the test subjects where
asked to simply name everything they
perceived from the four stimulus. Knowing
that the musical parameters was in focus, they
where not limited in any other way. All the
words, sentences and other descriptions
where later used to create the questions for
the questionnaire used in the real experiment. !The pilot-test also helped get overall
4.3 The questionnaire
The questionnaire used in the experiment has
three main parts. It was completely written in
Swedish because there where only going to
be Swedish test-subjects. The original
questionnaire can be found in the appendix.
use of the shaker is explained and also, it is
described how to fill out the questionnaire and
answer the questions. The experimenter
instructed the subjects how to place the hand
on the shaker and the other parts of the
experiment before the test began.
Before the questions-part, the subjects where
asked to fill out a separate form about their
experience with music and their self-assessed
ability to analyze music. This was done to
Luleå University of Technology
the four stimuli that the subjects where going
to experience through the shaker. All the
questions in the questionnaire where designed
and formed out from the pretest word and
sentences. Same exact questions where
asked on all of the four musical pieces and the
subjects are asked to write about their
perception in form of:
!- Instrumentation of the stimulus
- Tempo, pulse and/or rhythms of the stimulus
- The dynamics of the stimulus
- The form of the stimulus (form parts such as
Verse, chorus, bridge etc…) - Pitch or harmony of the stimulus
- Feel or emotional expression of the stimulus
- An ”other”-part where the subject is asked
to write if anything other than the questions asked is perceived or experienced.
!In the description the subjects are told to use
their own words, sentences, or descriptions to
answer the questions about the stimuli. They
where told there was no right or wrong
answers and where also asked to write, if they
where not able to answer a question, what it
was that did not allow them to. The subjects
where at this point aware of what the test for
the most part was about.
!The questionnaire was not designed to
judgement in form of time-frames and
feedback from the subjects allowing the test
being optimized before the experiment.
!The first part is an instruction to the test, the
!The main questionnaire asks questions about
determine the subjects accuracy. The data,
based on the asked questions in the form, will
only show what the subjects confidently felt
they perceived and extracted from the musical
pieces. All the parts of the form and the
questions asked can be found in the
appendix. 4.4 The test subjects
9 people with an average age of 24,6 years
completed the test. The subjects where
between 22 and 27 years old, 3 of them
female and 6 of them male. All of the subjects
played an instrument and/or sang. !8 out of 9 subjects has been active in music
for more than 11 years. And the ninth subject
had been active between 5 and 8 years. !
15/5 - 2014
10
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
7 out of 9 subjects spent more
than 18 hours a week playing or
listening to music. The two last
subjects spent approximately
between 6 and 18 hours. !When the subjects where asked
about their ability and confidence
in analyzing music, 6 out of 9
people answered very
comfortable and experienced.
Only one answered little comfort
and experience. One answered
fairly and the last one answered
immensely comfortable and
experienced with analyzing
music. All of the participants
where studying music in some
form at the time of the
experiment.
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
Fig 2. A test subject trying out the shaker before the test
!
Fig 3. The test setup with questionnaire, shaker and
isolating headphones playing back the room-tone. The
test can be paused and resumed just by pressing spacebutton on the laptop computer
!!
!
Luleå University of Technology
15/5 - 2014
11
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
!!
was organized in these ”boxes”, it was now
4.5 The test
The test was conducted in a fairly isolated 9,9 m2 large room with very little reverberation,
the same room where the room-tone was
recorded. 6 of the subjects completed the test
on the 18 March 2014 and 3 of the subjects
completed the test the day after: 19 March
2014. The room and the setup of the shaker
was the same at both the test and the pilottest. !When the subjects first came in to the room,
easy to see patterns and similarities between the words and sentences both for each song/
parameter and across songs/parameters. It
was now clear if the subjects experiences the
songs equally or differently. It was now also
clear what patterns easily could be extracted
from the stimulus and what was not as easy. These are the boxes, and examples of
answers in each box from the data:
they where asked to carefully read the
instruction before the test started. The
experimenter showed how the shaker
functioned and the subjects would try it out
before the actual stimulus was played, as
illustrated in fig 2. At this stage they also had
time to ask questions about the shaker or/and
the test. !The musical pieces where only played once
each. A beeping sound was played to the
headphones two seconds before a song
started and when a song ended to indicate to
the subjects when they should put the hand
on the surface or when they could start
writing. The test took about between 30-50
minutes depending on the subjects speed in
analyzing and writing on the questionnaire.
!!
During the actual test, subjects had the
possibility to stop the playback of the test with
just a press of a button. Between the songs
there where a one minute pause, but
sometimes this was not enough to have time
to write, so that’s why they could pause it,
write calmly and then resume when they liked. !The testing went well and with no problems.
All the subjects that where asked to
participate completed the test.
The subjects are given a questionnaire and
asked for qualitative feedback on the
experience. [12]
and descriptions. After collection, the data
was organized into a chart so that words
could be grouped by musical parameter and
song. The data was categorized by parameter
into what will be referred to as ”boxes” for
each song as seen in fig 4. When all the data !
Luleå University of Technology
Fig 4. Categorization of data by parameter into ”boxes”
randomized for every subject in the
experiment. Thanks to one unique project file
in the digital audio workstation for every testsession, the order of the songs could later be
held in order when summarizing the data.
!In this essay, a form of inductive research is
4.6 The data
!The data is a collection of words, sentences
!
!The playback order of the stimulus was
conducted. ”Induction is what we explore and
infer to be transferable from the particular to
the general, based on an examination of the
evidence and an accumulation of
knowledge” [12] For the method of decoding
the data, inspiration was taken from ”In vivo”
coding” [13] and ”Descriptive codes” [14]
which is two similar methods of analyzing,
coding and categorization of qualitative data. !After the data was collected and put in
”boxes” as described above, it was subcategorized and labeled as following:
!
15/5 - 2014
12
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
describe every instrument from the stimuli but
the data shows that 5 out of 9 is confident in
what they felt. Category 1 - Confidently perceived
- Data indicating that a subject were
confident and/or felt able to identify the
musical parameter that was asked for.
!For example if a subject wrote: ”I can clearly
perceive violins and timpani”. This is
categorized as a confident answer on the
instrumentation of a song. !
Category 2 - Uncertain/not able to perceive
- Data indicating that a subject were
uncertain and/or was not able to perceive
the musical parameter that was asked for. !For example if a subject wrote: ”I am not sure,
but I think I could have felt a guitar” or ”I
cannot perceive anything regarding pitch/
harmony of this song”. This would indicate
uncertainty and/or inability of perception. !!
5. Results!
!From the test, large amount of data was
!
!
Dynamics - Stimuli 1
The majority of the subjects could positively
identify the large dynamic nature of the musical piece. 9 out of 9 subjects claim that
they perceived the dynamics of the song.
Some of the subjects write that the dynamics
changes between the form-parts of the stimuli
and that it goes quickly between ”loud” to
”very quiet”. Form - Stimuli 1
6 out of 9 subjects have a hard time
identifying the form of the piece. Some
subjects describe that they can feel pauses
and the form being ”free” and ”discrete”. The
reason for this can be that the piece does not
have a pop-song form and the forms
dynamics is spread out over several musical
pieces and in the test only one is played. !
Pitch & harmony - Stimuli 1
Because of the very wide spectral range of the
piece, the majority of the subjects described
the stimuli as very rich in tonal parameters
which where changing constantly. Many of the
sentences describe the pitch changing and
”sweeping” in the different form-parts from
low to high. Also the data showed that the
low-frequency content (when present) was
easiest to perceive and feel from this piece. 3
out of 9 subjects did not perceived the pitch &
harmony of the song.
5.1 Stimuli 1 - ”La
Primavera” (Spring): III
This classical piece was the most complex
song considering the large dynamics, big
orchestra instrumentation, wide spectral
information and constantly changing pulses
and rhythms. !
Instrumentation - Stimuli 1
More than half of the words/sentences that
where collected showed that the majority of
the subjects believed they could accurately
feel single instruments or pieces of
instruments-groups from a string-orchestra.
Although there were some outliers, the
patterns are quite clear regarding
instrumentation: it was possible for many of
the subjects to identify correct instruments
from the stimuli. No subject could extract and
Luleå University of Technology
Pulse, rhythm & tempo - Stimuli 1
Pulse and rhythm on the other hand was not
easy to extract. 7 out of 9 subjects
experienced it hard to identify the pulse and
some describe it as ”flowing” and ”vague”.
Some subjects write that parts of rhythms
could be felt and identified clearly, but it is
very hard to interpret them because the lack
of percussive instruments and a very loose
pulse that is constantly changing. !
collected showing many different results on
what could and what could not successfully
be perceived from the stimulus when delivered
only via localized tactile input. In this section,
patterns and other conclusions that was
analyzed and extracted from the data will be
presented. The collected data can be found in
the appendix. !From the data, the following patterns where
extracted.
!
!
Feel & expression - Stimuli 1
Because of the subjective nature of this
question, the subjects wrote very different
words on this. Although, some patterns can
be extracted: many words describes the piece
”sweeping” and ”flowing”. Some described it
is beautiful and ”like art”. Some also wrote
that it feels like classical music and music
from a movie. 8 out of 9 subjects claim they
have perceived the feel and/or expression of
the song.
!
15/5 - 2014
13
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
Summary - Stimuli 1
To summarize, The instruments could be
identified to some extent, the piece was
described as very dynamic and have wide
spectral parameters. Although it was hard to
perceive and extract the form-parts, tempo
and rhythms. Many of the subjects felt this
was a diffuse and ambiguous piece. !
9
9
8
6
Instrumentation - Stimuli 2
The instrumentation could not be easily
extracted from the stimuli, 4 out of 9 subjects
where unsure. Some could perceive the bass,
some could perceive a guitar and some
percussive instruments but generally the
instruments of the song could not be easily
detected.
5
4
3
3
2
!
2
Feel & Expression
Pitch & Harmony
Form
Dynamics
Tempo/Pulse/Rhythm
1
Instrumentation
Number of subjects
6
This song is guitar and vocal-based. The
pulse is not consistent and it does not have
much low-frequency content. 5 out of 9
subjects wrote that the form was hard to
identify. This piece was one of the harder
tasks for the subjects but the results shows
some clear patterns anyway. !From the data, the following patterns where
extracted.
!
8
7
0
!
5.2 Stimuli 2 - ”Fairytale Lullaby”
Number of subjects that confidently perceived
the musical parameters of Stimuli 1 - ”La
Primavera” (Spring): III (Out of 9 totally)
5
confident and accurate on parts of the
musical parameters, for example: sometimes
the subjects only wrote parts of the
instrumentation or instrument groups, as well
as they only perceived parts of the form or
rhythm of a song. Musical parameters
Fig 5. Bar chart showing the amount of subjects that
confidently perceived the various musical parameters of
stimuli 1
!!
!The bar charts that can be found below the
summary of results for every stimuli, is a visual
presentation of the amount of subjects that
confidently expressed that they perceived the
various musical parameters that are asked for in the questionnaire. These charts do not
show if the subject wrote accurate and/or
correct answers, for example some features
they detected are not always present in the
song. And sometimes the subjects where only
Luleå University of Technology
Pulse, rhythm & tempo - Stimuli 2
The same way instrumentation was hard to
detect, pulse and tempo seemed also as a
hard task for the subjects. 7 out of 9 subjects
seemed to perceive some rhythms, or some
percussive instruments at some times but
overall they did have a hard time to distinguish
what instrument had which task musically.
Some thought the tempo for some
instruments where ”broken”. And as
described by the subject that wrote it,
”broken” means that it would not play on all
quarter notes in the songs pulse making it
hard to extract. Some subjects also described
the rhythm and percussive instrument present
but in the ”background” and the other parts
the piece was in the forefront. !
Dynamics - Stimuli 2
7 out of 9 subjects could successfully identify
the piece as dynamic in the way that it builds
up from beginning to end. But it was not
obvious for all of the subjects, some wrote
that the piece was ”mellow”, ”not dynamic”,
”flat” and ”messy” when delivered tactically to
the hand. !
!
!
15/5 - 2014
14
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
Form - Stimuli 2
The most subjects did perceive a
dynamic build-up in the piece but
had a hard time figuring out the form
of it. Some subjects descriptions
were kind of uncertain and diffuse.
Only a few, 4 out of 9 subjects
perceived the form of this stimuli.
Number of subjects that confidently perceived the
musical parameters of Stimuli 2 - ”Fairytale
Lullaby” (Out of 9 totally)
9
!
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
Luleå University of Technology
Feel & Expression
Pitch & Harmony
0
Form
1
Summary - Stimuli 2
Generally, this song was hard to
describe for the subjects. The data
categorized in Instrumentation,
pulse, rhythm and form was very
spread out showing that the
subjects where confused and
uncertain. However the majority of
the subjects did describe the dynamics of the
piece well and clearly identify the build-up of
the song, as well as the rhythm was not
percussive-based but was driven by
instruments such as guitar, bass and vocals.
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
5
Dynamics
!
6
Tempo/Pulse/Rhythm
Feel & expression - Stimuli 2
Many of the subjects got the feeling
this was a rock-song, some other
said march music and music from a
movie was also mentioned. There is
no doubt that the subjects felt there
was a clear expression and feel of
the song, but as it is subjective the
answers, except that several
thought it was a rock-feeling song,
they are kind of spread out. 6 out of
9 subjects claim they have
perceived the feel and/or expression
of the song.
7
Instrumentation
!
7
Number of subjects
Pitch & harmony - Stimuli 2
The same way the subjects where
uncertain of form and
instrumentation, unfortunately pitch
and harmony was also very hard to
extract. The same way here,
subjects seemed to guess and be
able to perceive the low-frequency
content easier, but overall they felt a
bit confused and unsure of the pitch
and harmony of this piece. Only 3
out of 9 subjects could perceive
pitch and harmony in some way
from this piece.
8
Musical parameters
!!
!!
Fig 6. Bar chart showing the amount of subjects that
confidently perceived the various musical parameters of
stimuli 2
!!
!!
!!
!!
15/5 - 2014
15
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
!
!
!
!
5.3 Stimuli 3 - ”This Love”
”This love” is a track with a very exact and
steady pulse with very clear bass & drum
rhythm. The song and form are typical of a
pop-song. The piece is also a very famous
modern pop-song, which made it possible for
one of the subjects to recognize it. !From the data, the following patterns where
extracted.
!
!
Instrumentation - Stimuli 3
The majority of the subjects wrote that they
could definitely perceive drums and bass
patterns from the piece. Some subjects also
wrote that they could feel guitars somewhere
”below” the drums & bass. The subjects seem
quite certain on the instrumentation of this
song. Although no subjects wrote anything
about the vocals. 8 out of 9 subjects claim
that they perceive parts of the instrumentation
of this song.
!
Pulse, rhythm & tempo - Stimuli 3
The subjects wrote in quite lot on this section,
the majority could perceive the tempo and
pulse of the song without any problems.
Sentences like ”clear tempo”, ”obvious notes”
and ”precise rhythms” shows that the groove
of the song can easily be picked up by the
subjects. !
Dynamics - Stimuli 3
Here the subjects where not absolutely united.
The majority could feel the dynamics of the
song but they seemed to have a hard time
describing it because the piece does not have
any calm parts. But many of the subjects
could perceive different parts of the form in
the song, and they seemed to understand that
it is not very dynamic overall by writing for
example: ”flat” or ”mellow”. The dynamic that
they described seemed to be more about the
musical dynamic. For example, descriptions
like ”more intensive to the end” or ”Simple in
the beginning, bigger in the end” shows that a
couple of subjects did feel dynamic changes.
However all of the 9 subjects does claim to
perceive the dynamics of the song. !
!
!
!
!
!
!
Luleå University of Technology
Form - Stimuli 3
The subjects are quite vague in their answers
on this question. They wrote words like
”fuzzy” and ”steady like a train” They could
indeed feel variations and ”parts” in the song
but it is very hard to interpret and extract
exact what form-part it is they felt. Only half of
the subjects claim that they can perceive
anything related to form on this song. Pitch & harmony - Stimuli 3
The majority described that they sometimes
could feel high notes but that the bass drum
and bass of the song mask it when playing.
Two of the subjects described that a guitar
was present, some of them thought they felt a
synth but no one seemed to hear pitch
changes at all. 5 out of 9 subjects were
uncertain or did not perceive anything related
to pitch or harmony from this song. !
Feel & expression - Stimuli 3
The subjects could for the most part perceive
the expression of the song and described it as
for example: ”funky”, ”happy”, ”groovy”. Many
described what genre they thought it would be
and what it felt like. In conclusion, every
subject could extract some feeling after the
song was played and the most of them were
astonished on exactly how much they could
perceive without even have heard the song
audibly.
!
Summary - Stimuli 3
Many of the subjects described the song as a
”pop song” or ”song from the radio”. And one
of the subjects accurately identified out the
song after hearing the intro. The clear bass
and drum sections of the song was overall
easily extracted by the subjects as well as the
pulse and tempo which the majority claimed
they perceived. The pitch and harmony part
was hard maybe because of the rich lowfrequency content that may have masked it.
The dynamics and form could be perceived as
different parts in the song by the most
subjects although it was hard to exactly
interpret it and describe it well. All subjects
claim that they perceive the feel and or
expression of this song.
!!
!!
!!
!
15/5 - 2014
16
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
drum which tells a lot about the songs
dynamic and expression. The song doesn’t
have a very distinct harmony which can be
hard to identify. Number of subjects that confidently perceived
the musical parameters of Stimuli 3 - ”This
Love” (Out of 9 totally)
9
8
9
9
!From the data, the following patterns where
extracted.
!
!
9
Instrumentation - Stimuli 4
5 out of 9 subjects could clearly feel a
percussive instrument in the intro and the
drums in the piece. Several of the subjects
could also perceive the bass, and guitar in
the song. Only one subject mentions vocals
though. 5 out of 9 subjects could perceive
the instrumentation in some way, many of
them write for example: ”rock-set up with
drums and bass”, ”bass drum and bass is
present” ”distinct drum-patterns and bass
notes” 8
7
5
!
4
4
Pulse, rhythm & tempo - Stimuli 4
8 out of 9 subjects could clearly feel the
pulse of the song, the tempo were also
perceived by many of them. All of the
subjects could perceive something related
to rhythm or pulse. No significant outliers
here, and that could be because the song
isn’t very complex and has a steady pulse
that is consistent during the whole song. 4
3
2
!
Feel & Expression
Pitch & Harmony
Form
Dynamics
0
Tempo/Pulse/Rhythm
1
Instrumentation
Number of subjects
6
Musical parameters
!
Fig 7. Bar chart showing the amount of subjects that
confidently perceived the various musical parameters of
stimuli 3
!!
5.4 Stimuli 4 - ”Born In The U.S.A”
!This piece is a classic rock song with a clear
build-up that continues from beginning to end.
It starts out with almost only vocals and snare
Luleå University of Technology
Dynamics - Stimuli 4
Almost every answer described the same
phenomenon, that the piece was dynamic
and builds up all the way from beginning to
end. The subject use different words saying
approximately the same thing, that they
could feel the songs natural dynamic
changes. !All subjects except one perceive the
dynamics in some way with the description:
”instrumentation builds up as the song
progresses with added intensity and
energy”, ”the song is quite dynamic, more
and more things happened the whole time”
and ”a long, scary build up, not many
pauses”. !
Form - Stimuli 4
The majority of subjects could positively
identify an intro and a build-up where more
and more instruments added. Although when
more instruments added it seemed to get
harder and harder to distinguish what actually
happens in the song. Only half of the subjects
claimed that they perceived something related
to the form. The other half where uncertain or
not able to perceive anything.
15/5 - 2014
17
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
!
!
Number of subjects that confidently perceived the
musical parameters of Stimuli 4 - ”Born In The
U.S.A” (Out of 9 totally)
Pitch & harmony - Stimuli 4
About half of the subjects could
not perceive any clear harmonies
or notes except the lo-frequency
notes from drums and bass.
Several subjects describe it
possible to feel harmonies but hard
to distinguish what exactly it is and
what instruments plays it. 9
8
!Also after the intro, so many
!How ever the harmony of the song
5
5
4
3
2
Feel & Expression
0
Pitch & Harmony
1
Form
Summary - Stimuli 4
In conclusion, the song was
described by the majority of the
subjects as a dynamic song that
had a clear build-up with drums
and bass. The pulse and tempo
was possible by the most of the
subjects to positively point out and
perceive. 5
Dynamics
!
6
Tempo/Pulse/Rhythm
Feel & expression - Stimuli 4
The subjects wrote very different
things on this question, but they all
had a very clear notions on what
they felt after experiencing the
piece. Several write for example:
”slow rock” ”classic rock” ”rock
ballad” and ”dramatic”. The
subjects were clearly united that
the song was expressive in some
way, they just described it
differently. All subjects perceived
something related to feel or
expression of this song. 8
6
Instrumentation
!
8
7
Number of subjects
instruments exist in the mix that it
gets even harder to interpret what
is perceived. The subjects write
sentences like ”Harmony was a
hard question” and ”the drums and
bass where the easiest to
perceive”. Only half of the subjects
where confident that they had
perceived something related to
pitch or harmony. 9
Musical parameters
was very hard to detect according to most of
the subjects. The feel and expression of the
song was described well but differently by the
subjects because of the subjective nature of
the question, the importance is although that
it is possible to extract the feel without being
able to hear the song audibly. !!
Fig 8. Bar chart showing the amount of subjects that
confidently perceived the various musical parameters of
stimuli 4
!!
!
Luleå University of Technology
15/5 - 2014
18
Instrumentation
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
8
5
Stimuli 4 - ”Born In The U.S.A”
5
Stimuli 3 - ”This Love”
5
Stimuli 2 - ”Fairytale Lullaby”
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Stimuli 1- ”La Primavera” (Spring): III
Number of subjects
Comparison table - Number of subjects that confidently perceived the
instrumentation of the stimulus
Fig 9. Comparing table showing the number of subjects that confidently perceived the instrumentation of the various
stimulus
Pulse, rhythm & tempo
9
9
Stimuli 3 - ”This Love”
Stimuli 4 - ”Born In The U.S.A”
5
2
Stimuli 2 - ”Fairytale Lullaby”
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Stimuli 1- ”La Primavera” (Spring): III
Number of subjects
Comparison table - Number of subjects that confidently perceived pulse, rhythm
and/or tempo of the stimulus
Fig 10. Comparing table showing the number of subjects that confidently perceived the pulse, rhythm and/or tempo of
the various stimulus
Luleå University of Technology
15/5 - 2014
19
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
Dynamics
9
9
8
Stimuli 3 - ”This Love”
Stimuli 4 - ”Born In The U.S.A”
7
Stimuli 2 - ”Fairytale Lullaby”
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Stimuli 1- ”La Primavera” (Spring): III
Number of subjects
Comparison table - Number of subjects that confidently perceived the dynamics
of the stimulus
!
Fig 11. Comparing table showing the number of subjects that confidently perceived the dynamics of the various stimulus
Form
5
4
4
Stimuli 3 - ”This Love”
Stimuli 4 - ”Born In The U.S.A”
3
Stimuli 2 - ”Fairytale Lullaby”
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Stimuli 1- ”La Primavera” (Spring): III
Number of subjects
Comparison table - Number of subjects that confidently perceived the form of the
stimulus
!
Fig 12. Comparing table showing the number of subjects that confidently perceived the form of the various stimulus
Luleå University of Technology
15/5 - 2014
20
Pitch & harmony
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
6
6
4
Stimuli 3 - ”This Love”
Stimuli 4 - ”Born In The U.S.A”
3
Stimuli 2 - ”Fairytale Lullaby”
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Stimuli 1- ”La Primavera” (Spring): III
Number of subjects
Comparison table - Number of subjects that confidently perceived the form of the
stimulus
!
Fig 13. Comparing table showing the number of subjects that confidently perceived the pitch and/or harmony of the
various stimulus
Feel & expression
9
8
8
Stimuli 3 - ”This Love”
Stimuli 4 - ”Born In The U.S.A”
6
Stimuli 2 - ”Fairytale Lullaby”
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Stimuli 1- ”La Primavera” (Spring): III
Number of subjects
Comparing table - Number of subjects that confidently perceived the form of the
stimulus
Fig 14. Comparing table showing the number of subjects that confidently perceived the feel and/or expression of the
various stimulus
Luleå University of Technology
15/5 - 2014
21
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
6. Discussion!
!The results show that it is possible to extract
!- The pitch & harmony extraction was almost
as hard to perceive as the form of the song.
When looking at fig 13, on stimuli 1 & 4
more subjects perceived some information
related to harmony and/or pitch, this can
depend on different things. First of all these
pieces did not have as much rich lowfrequency content as stimuli 3 that perhaps
masks in some way. Also it seems that
these to have more high-frequency content
than stimuli 2 which may easier allow
perception of pitch and harmony. something from every enquired musical
parameter of the test. Even if it is a small
detail of a specific parameter. The results also
show that some parameters are easier
detected and other not as easy. Some
parameters are easier detected depending on
the stimuli. These results, comparisons and
other theories will be discussed below.
!- As we can see in fig 9, Instrumentation of
the different stimulus is possible to
perceive, more then half of the subjects
confidently extracted parts of information
on the instrumentation or instrumentgroups of the stimulus. What we also can
see from this chart is that more subjects
where confident in perceiving the
instrumentation of stimuli 3.
For example one of the subjects did
accurately point out one song correctly
thanks to the clear drum and bass rhythms
and patterns that he recognized well.
!- The feel & expression of the stimulus was
the second most confidently perceived
parameter of the experiment. When looking
at fig 14, it is clearly visible that more then
half of the subjects on all of the stimulus
confidently perceived the feel and/or
expression in some way. The feel and
expression part was a deliberately
subjective asked question just to see if the
subjects got an emotional feel or could be
open to reflect on the songs expression as
opposed to the other questions that where
more objective. The interesting thing is that
this is the question where the subject where
the most open and confident in what they
wrote. Which tells us that the expression
and feel of the song actually went through
even if the subjects never have heard the
music audibly. This also tells us that this
technology could possibly be used to
amplify emotions perceived from music in
some way.
!- Fig 10 shows a couple of different things
regarding pulse, rhythm & tempo. First of all
it shows that all subjects confidently
perceived something on this parameter
from stimuli 3 and 4. Stimuli 2 was harder to
interpret and only 2 out of 9 subjects wrote
anything with confidence on stimuli 1, the
classical piece. This indicates that the
subjects more easily extracts the pulse,
rhythms or tempo of the steady pop and
rock-song with clear percussive
instruments. !- The dynamics of the songs was the musical
parameter that the most subjects
confidently perceived in all of the different
stimulus, as shown in fig 11. This is why it
seems that the dynamics of a song was the
easiest parameter to extract information
from when delivered tactically to the hand.
The subjects simply felt if a song constantly
was loud and vibrated in longer durations of
the songs against the hand to interpret this
as a non-dynamic song. If the song went
from low to loud many times during the
song the subjects could interpret this as a
dynamic song.
!- When looking at fig 12, it is clear that this
!
was not a very easy question to answer. On
all of the stimulus except one, half of the
subjects where uncertain or did not quite
perceive the form of the song. The subjects
could for the most part perceive different
parts of the song in some way but generally
they where not certain how to interpret
them as different form-parts. Luleå University of Technology
!When looking at fig 15 below and comparing
the total confident answers for the whole test,
we can clearly see that the dynamics and feel/
expression of a song is easiest detected and
perceived. We can also clearly see that form
and pitch/harmony is the hardest detected,
more than half of the answers indicated
uncertainty and/or that subjects was not able
to perceive it at all. Instrumentation, pulse
rhythm and tempo was in between with more
than half of the answers indicating confident
answers and ability to perceive. After
analyzing the results it is now thought, that for
the subjects to be able to extract and perceive
for example, the instruments and instrumentsgroups from the stimulus, there are a number
of criteria that needs to be fulfilled in the
musical pieces for it to be possible:
15/5 - 2014
22
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
!
Comparison table - number of confident answers in total from the test on the different
musical parameters (out of 36 for each of the six questions)
36
34
33
32
31
30
26
25
24
22
23
20
19
18
16
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
Feel & Expression
Pitch & Harmony
Form
Dynamics
0
Pulse Rhythm & Tempo
2
Instumentation
Number of confident answers
28
Fig 15. Comparison table showing the amount of confident answers (out of 36 in total) from the whole test on the
different musical parameters.
One of the biggest issues and difficulties in
the test seems to be because of masking.
Depending on how the music is arranged and
mixed will have a tremendous effect on what
can and what cannot easily be detected when
delivered tactically. After all the stimulus that
was played where not filtered or adjusted in
any way when played back non-audibly.
Which means that if hi-pitched detailed
sounds, like for example synth-pads, guitars,
backup vocals and etc. are mixed lower in
volume in the mix, it will most likely be
masked by other louder, possibly thick lowfrequency sounds like bass and bass drums.
Some of the subjects wrote that they could
indeed perceive some small hi-pitched notes
but it was hard to describe them accurately
Luleå University of Technology
! because they where in the ”background” of
the mix.
!We also have a number of physical and
technical aspects. For example we don’t know
for sure when the shaker transfers vibrations
to the surface and when the vibrations then are transferred to the skin on the hand, exactly
what happens spectrally. It is possible that
some frequencies are lost, or even amplified in
some way, the lo-frequency content seems to
be more clear and loud, but we can only
speculate at this stage. Overall, hi-pitch is harder to perceive. When
looking at the data, subjects write bass and
bass drum and/or drums more than for
example: guitar or vocals etc. This indicates
15/5 - 2014
23
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
that not only the hi-pitched sounds and
timbers are masked by lo frequency sounds,
but they also seem harder to detect when
presented individually as they sometimes do
in for example: stimuli 1. This could depend
on that hi-frequency vibrations have a smaller
wavelength, which makes it harder to
physically feel on the hand than the bigger
wavelength that low frequencies have. !The reason for the form of a song being so
hard to detect could be connected to the hard
detection of pitch/harmony. If the form parts is
manly recognizable thanks to the hi-frequency
content of a song, then while pitch and
harmony is hard to detect, form will in turn
also be hard to detect. !One other thing is important to remember
when looking at the charts and results of the
test. The questions where asked openly and
wide because no one had done this kind of
research before, the questions was narrowed
down to perception of the musical parameters
with both objective and subjective nature,
although the questions and answers does not
answer the question of accuracy, and there
are a couple of reasons for this. First of all,
some subjects took a long time doing the test,
up to 40 - 50 minutes. The subjects would
simply not be able to focus properly if the test
would be any longer and bigger. Also the
knowledge on amount of accuracy was partly
unknown when delivered tactically to the
hand. After all, even if the subjects would
listen to the stimulus audibly via speakers or
headphones, it is not certain every instrument
in a song for example, would be perceived
anyway. This test was designed to only
investigate what the subjects confidently
would describe that they perceived in the
different musical parameters with a small
variation of musical pieces. !Having said that, the subjects seemed very
honest in their answers. This can be seen in
the words and sentences where they have
written things like: ”I am not certain, but I
think…”, ”this was very hard, but I guess…”
and ”the previous song was easier, but I
think…”. The subjects where interested in the
results and the phenomenon of experiencing
music in a way they had never done before.
That way they really seemed to dedicate
themselves to the task in the test. Also,
because the form was open and had no
suggested words to use in answers, the
subjects where not able to simply check a box
and guess. They needed to really think and
analyze before they answered the questions. Luleå University of Technology
!The method worked well, considering no
previous research had been done exactly this
way before. The shaker, headphone setup
with form worked as desired and proved to
give good results. In the end though, the
amount of data was very large because of the
many questions that was asked. !The research reviewed here gives a good
baseline for further research. For further
research, more stimulus and less questions
would be a good starting point. More musical
pieces would create an even wider variation of
different music and show even more. And now
when we have some evidence that masking is
possibly a big factor and that form and pitch/
harmony is hard to detect, the method could
be improved in some way to possibly make
these easier detectable. Also, this research
does not tell whether the subjects are
accurate or not, only if they claim that they
perceive or not. The questions could also be
written in a way to get results on accuracy
when music is delivered tactically.
!To summarize, the results offer a good starting
place for this technology and has given much
knowledge of different aspects on the
perception of musical pieces delivered
tactically to the hand. The research was in
small scale and this could have impacted the
results. If more stimulus where to be used with
a greater variation. Less, but more detailed
and narrowed down questions would have
been asked and if more subjects would
participate, then we would know even more of
the phenomenon. !Also, the essay only tests one subject group:
trained musicians with a good ability of
analyzing music. In the future if testing would
be conducted with more and different groups,
for example: musicians and non musicians or
audio engineers and non engineers, this would
provide even more knowledge in the area.
Comparisons could be made and the results
would offer an even better starting place for
the technology, after all the kickers and
shakers should not only be able to used by
musicians and/or audio engineers for
example. Music is for everyone and if the
technology of shakers and kickers could
amplify or enhance the experience for non
musicians and other consumers, the
technology should also be available for them.
But again, this requires more research on
these potential target groups.
!
15/5 - 2014
!
24
Bachelor Thesis
Abraham Kourieh
!
!
7. Summary!
!An experiment was conducted on perceiving musical parameters via tactile feedback. In the
experiment a vibrations motor was used to deliver four musical stimulus. 9 musically trained
subjects conducted the test. The four stimulus had different musical parameters and the subjects
where asked to fill out a questionnaire of questions on these parameters. The subjects put one
hand on the surface that the stimulus was delivered to and listened to a pre-recorded room tone
with isolating headphones. Results show that parts of the musical parameters: Instrumentation,
tempo/pulse/rhythm, dynamics, form, pitch/harmony and feel/expression is possible to extract to
some extent. However the results does not show if the subjects where accurate in their
perception or answers. Results also show that dynamics and feel/expression are easiest
perceived, form and pitch/harmony are hardest perceived. One of the issues and difficulties in
perception seems to be due to lo frequency masking of hi frequency-content in the musical
pieces.
!!
!
8. Future work!
!When analyzing the results further, more questions appear. These subjects have probably never
done anything like this before, especially never completely without audible input. That also means
that they are not trained and experienced in analyzing music that is delivered tactically. Perhaps if
they where trained and was able to do the test more times, maybe they would be able to perceive
even more. And what would happen if subjects would put both hands on a shaker, would this
amplify the experience, perception and/or ability to extract musical parameters even more?
!The goal for this kicker and shaker technology is to refine it to the point that it could be used in
homes and for professional use everywhere music is performed and played back to enhance and
amplify the experience. This research shows that not only can musical parameters be extracted,
songs can be recognized and the dynamics and feel of a song can be experienced. This begs to
the question; What happens when tactile input and audible input are grouped? If we understand
better how to utilize tactile input and music together, this could enable the listener to experience
music in a new and better way than ever. Luleå University of Technology
15/5 - 2014
25
!
9. References!
!!
1. Glennie, E. http://www.evelyn.co.uk/biography.html - (Last retrieved 24/3-2014)
!
2. Glennie, E. (1993). Hearing Essay http://www.evelyn.co.uk - (Last retrieved 24/3 - 2014)
!
3. V. Békésy, G. (1948). Vibration of the head in a sound field and its role in hearing by bone conduction. The journal of the acoustical society of America: 20(6), 749-760
!
4. Huang, J., Gamble, D., Sarnlertsophon, K., Wang, X & Hsiao, S. (2012). Feeling music: integration of auditory and tactile inputs in musical meter perception. PLoS ONE 7(10): e48496. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048496
!
5. Phillips-Silver, J & Trainor, L. (2006). Hearing what the body feels: Auditory encoding of rhythmic movements. Cognition 105, 533–546
!
6. Phillips-Silver, J & Trainor, L. (2005). Feeling the beat: movement influences infants’ rhythm
perception. Science: 308(5727), 1430
!
7. Wallin, N. L., Merker, B., Brown, S. (2000). The Origins of Music. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
2000. Cited By Phillips-Silver, J. & Trainor, L. (2005). Feeling the beat: movement influences infants’ rhythm perception. Science, 308(5727), 1430
!
8
Brüel & Kjaer, http://www.bksv.com/Products/shakers-exciters/lds-vibration-test/ - (Last retrieved 24/3-2014)
!
9. Vic Firth, http://www.vicfirth.com/product/buynow/product.php?button=SIH1 - (Last retrieved
! 24/3-2014)
10. Neumann, https://www.neumann.com/ - (Last retrieved 24/3-2014)
!
11. Buttkicker, http://www.thebuttkicker.com - (Last retrieved 1/4-2014)
!
12. Saldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford university press.
!
13. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Referenced by Saldaña, J. (2011) Fundamentals of qualitative research.
Oxford university press
!
14. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage. Referenced by Saldaña, J. (2011) Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford
university press
26
!
10. Appendix!
!First the collected data from the test, then the actual questionnaire that was used in the
experiment
!!
Collected data from test
!
!
!!
Stimuli 1:
Anne Akiko Meyers & The English Chamber Orchestra performing:
Vivaldi - The four seasons; Concerto No. 1 in E major, Op. 8, RV 259, ”La Primavera” (Spring): III. Danza pastorale (2014)
Instrumentation!
-Bara ett piano!
-Stråkinstrument !
-Klassisk orkestermusik!
-Mycket stråkar!
-Stråkorkester!
-Inga rytminstrument!
-Fioler!
-Stråkar!
-timpani!
-Blås!
-En symfoniorkester!
-En större kör som ligger på samma ton i basen och i toppen görs små förflyttningar!
-Trummor eller bas!
-Lågfrekvent instrument !
!
Tempo/puls/rytm!
-Svårt, ej uppfattad puls. -Rytmer känns men är svåra att tyda.
-Svävande rytm -Svårt att urskilja tempo!
-Svepande rörelser!
-Låten känns väldigt luddig !
-Långsamt!
-3/4-takt i mitten!
-Fritt tempo i början!
-Basigare instrument lägger mer rytmiska toner!
-Rytmer i början som återkommer!
-Mer jämnt i andra delen!
-Rubatokänsla!
-Svepande rytmer!
-Långsamt tempo i 4/4!
-Lågfrekvent instrument som skapade en tydlig puls!
-Man kan känna puls och rytmer!
-Hade ett tempo i kroppen som jag uppfattade från vibrationerna!
!
Dynamik!
-Stycket är dynamisk, går hela tiden mellan starkt och svagt!
-Svepande från svag till stark
-Dynamisk på kort tid
-Mycket svagt i slutet
-Svepande i början
-Blandades långa och korta toner väldigt mycket!
-Långa toner!
-Väldigt dynamiskt!
-Mycket svaga delar, några starkare!
-I början var det starka långa toner!
-I slutet var det mycket små/diskreta vibrationer!
-Ganska jämnt men mer fart i 2:a delen!
-Mest dynamisk av alla stycken!
-Ibland nästan helt tyst!
-Monotont !
-Relativt stor dynamisk skillnad!
-Vibrationerna upplevdes kraftigare och snabbare i svängningarna ibland!
!!
Form !
-Uppfattar ej form
-Svårt att definiera vad man kände !
-Stycket anpassat till något, typ film/musikal!
-I början långa legatotoner!
-Fritt intro - mer rytmiskt mitten - efter det okänt!
-Diskret !
-Vers, ,mycket pauser varje 8:e takt. Stick ref ref!
-Känns som nya formdelar hela tiden!
-Små pauser eller snarare andetag förekommer här och var!
-Pauser i de lägre frekvenserna !
-Uppfattade inga specifika formdelar!
-Kändes lite fri form nästan!
!
Tonhöjd/Harmoni/Frekvens!
-Många olika frekvenser!
-Mer rikt på låga frekvenser
-Brett spann!
-Mycket basrika inslag till en början!
-Kraftiga bastoner i början!
-Svepande i början!
-Svällande och krympande bas i början!
-Avtagande i mitten med högre frekvens!
-Vissa toner kändes mer på handen!
-Basigt!
-Kraftfulla basinstrument !
-När det gick ner i dynamik kunde man känna av instrument i höga register!
-Snabba svängningar!
-Högt register i början!
-Basigare instrument i mitten!
-Lågt i början !
-Högre i andra delen!
-Mollig känsla !
-Många toner i det lägre tonregistret!
-Mycket bas!
-Inga direkta höga toner!
-Ganska brett rent frekvensmässigt!
-Låga frekvenserna kändes tydligast!
!
Känsla/uttryck!
-En ordentlig fylla, ”ramla runt som en stolle”.
-Svävande
-Svepande!
-Vackert!
-Vemodigt!
-Otydlig!
-Uttrycksfullt!
-Som konst!
-Klassiskt stycke!
-Tänker direkt att det är filmmusik!
-Spänning, som i att något kommer att hända!
-Det kändes lite flytande på något vis men ändå med någon slags puls, nästan som ett klassiskt stycke!
!
Övrigt!
-Diffust !
-Svårt!
-Jag kände vibrationer i hela handen och även separata ute i fingerspetsarna ibland
!
!
Stimuli 2:
Bombay Bicycle Club performing:
”Fairytale Lullaby” from the album ”Flaws” (2010)
Instrumentation!
-Synthar eller stråkar!
-Trummor!
-Bas!
-Gitarr eller kanske piano
-Frekvensen av sång eller bas man känner av mest!
-Kan ej uppfatta instrument, men kanske trummor & bas!
-Typisk rockbandsättning !
-Tänkte att det var basen jag kände!
-Trumvirvel
-Tror mig höra en kontrabas i introt!
-Vispar kommer in efter ett tag följt av andra jazziga instrument!
-Kanske ett piano eller en gitarr!
-Kan ej uppfatta instrumentation!
-De lågfrekventa snärtiga trum och basljuden hördes inte lika tydligt som i en annan av låtarna!
!
Tempo/puls/rytm!
-Svårt att uppfatta!
-Det känns inte som att något percussivt instrument har hand om tempobiffen
-Emellanåt distinkt rytm (korta anslag)
-Troligen 2 slag i takten eller 4!
-ca. 112-120 BPM!
-Sporadiska rytminslag utöver konstant takt-betoning!
-Kunde mest uppfatta det som isåfall låg ovanpå pulsen!
-Svårt att urskilja rytmer!
-Svårt att uppfatta puls/rytm!
-Kände en puls men kan ha känt den i baktakt
-Relativt uptempo!
-Låten går i ca. 110 BPM!
-Tempot känns som 4/4!
-Mycket rytmer!
-Svårt att urskilja lite
-Svårt att känna puls, men om det är en jazzlåt så spelade basen ”broken” (inte på alla fjärdedelarna) upplever därför ett långsammare
tempo!
-Ett relativt högt tempo!
-Svårt att uppfatta tempot!
-Kändes som en snabb låt av någon anledning!
-Kände en och samma rytm ganska mycket!
!
Dynamik!
-Odynamisk!
-Väldigt platt!
-Enklare till en början större mot slutet, om än mycket liten skillnad!
-Kan uppfatta dynamik, varierade i vibrationerna vilket borde kunna relateras till dynamik!
-Det kändes som att hälften av instrumenten spelade något kraftfullt och andra hälften svarade i ett högre register!
-Starkare mot slutet!
-När halva tiden gått blev vibrationerna starkare och längre notvärdesmässigt, innan var det lite flummigare!
-Bygg i dynamik, intensivare i slut!
-Lugnt -> aggressivt !
-Den känns väldigt jämn!
-Svårt att uppfatta dynamik!
-Den är inte lika ösig som förra låten!
-Väldigt mellow!
-Ganska rörig!
-Mycket variation vad gäller tonlängder!
-Kändes inte jättedynamiskt!
-Vibrationerna kändes ungefär likadant hela tiden, det blev starkare ibland!
!
Form !
-Mycket luddigt!
-Mest som ett tåg som bara tuffade på!
-Korta och lätta rytmbetoningar!
-Till kommer mer och längre toner allt efter som!
-Typisk form (vers refr vers refr) med ett fetare outro!
-Först känns!
-Första delen känns som en ensam trummis, sedan läggs det på fler!
-Uppfattar inga formdelar förutom ett basintro
-Uppfattade två delar som återkommande, en med kortare toner och en med två långa!
-Jag misstänker att jag kunde känna olika formdelar i och med att vibrationerna kändes kraftigare ibland!
-Ibland kändes det som att det kom in en mer lågfrekvent del, kanske en bas i långa toner!
!
Tonhöjd/Harmoni
-Vissa förändringar men väldigt luddigt!
-Litet spann på registret allt låg varandra ganska nära!
-Mot slutet stora längre toner med brett spektra över diskant och ner till bas!
-Mellanregistret i rytmstämma!
-Tillkommer troligen ackord senare i stycket!
-Starkt och lågt vs ljus och svagt!
-Uppfattade inget register!
-Pålägg på andra delen!
-Ingen direkt tonhöjd!
-Det känns som att de byter harmonik oftare i denna men det är inget jag ”hör”!
-De flesta vibrationerna kändes relativt ”små” dvs högre frekvenser.!
!
Känsla/uttryck!
-Svepande rörelser!
-Väldigt ointressant!
-Troligen storband!
-Kanske filmmusik (Hans Zimmer)!
-En rockigare låt!
-Rockigt !
-Flummigare och mer laid-back på första halvan, sedan blir det längre och mer intensiva vibrationer !
-Marsh!
-En jazzig känsla får jag med ett ganska mjukt uttrycksätt, inte allt för svårlyssnad jazz!
-Mer rockigt än något annat!
-Jag tyckte den kändes hetsig, lite biljakts-hetsig på något sätt!
!
Övrigt!
-Sjukt märkligt, trodde jag skulle känna tydligare hur det skulle kunna låta!
-Svårt att uppfatta denna gången!
-Svårt att uppfatta vad som händer i låten, ganska otydligt beat!
!
!
!
Stimuli 3:!
Maroon 5 performing: ”This love” from the album ”Songs About Jane” (2002)
Instrumentation!
- Rockband. !
- Tydliga elgitarrer!
- Tunga trummor!
- Fet bas.!
- Trumma & bas korta och distinkta!
- Ljusare inslag!
- Nu kan jag känna vad som skulle kunna vara baskaggen!
- Distad gitarr!
- Bas!
- Trummor!
- Rockigt!
- Trummor!
- Bas!
- Kagge!
- Svängigt trumspel!
- Vibrationerna tror jag kom från kaggen. Mörka. Betyder väl inte nödvändigtvis att det är mer basrikt, men det kändes så.!
- Trummor (kagge)!
- Bas!
- Jag tror mig höra ett trumset !
- En tydlig bas!
- Tänker mig också distade gitarrer eller aggressiva syntar!
- Trummor!
- Bas!
- Tydligt Trummor och bas!
!
Tempo/puls/rytm!
- Solklart tempo !
- Givna ”prickar”!
- Korta distinkta rytmer och grova basfigurer!
- Rytmen är mycket tung och basig med ett ljust inslag i mitten av rytmen!
- Mycket tung bas!
-
Ja, pulsen går att känna!
Man kan nästan känna beatet inom sig!
Absolut! Det kändes som två delar, en rytmisk och en mer ”svepande” –”legato” !
Tänker lätt pentaskala när jag hör den rytmiska delen!
Mycket synkoper!
De första takterna ligger tempot på 9:delar sedan mer synkoperat och mera 8:delar!
Flera rytmgrupper!
Up-tempo!
Stycket verkar gå i 4/4 takt och man känner !
Man känner en tydlig virvel på slag 2 och 4 !
Baskaggerytm!
Outrot var nog väldigt ösigt!
Relativt högt tempo!
Tydliga rytmer !
Väldigt precisa rytmer!
Korta tonlängder!
Intensivt!
Ett monotont och tydligt beat!
Tydligt tempo!
Tydlig puls!
Tydliga rytmer på trumfiguren!
!
Dynamik!
- Ganska dynamiskt. !
- Mest fullt ös hela tiden!
- Kraftfull till en början tillkommer variationer och mer dynamiska uttryck!
- Den går rätt lika hela tiden men variation in till vad som skulle kunna va refrängen känns!
- Ganska jämt, men med ett visst bygg inför/mellan de rytmiska delarna !
- Dynamiskt!
- Del 1 mer lugn!
- Del 2 som återupprepas är mer synkopierad!
- Det känns som att stycket har ösigare delar där dynamiken förstärks men låten har nog en ganska ösig attityd rakt igenom!
- Mer dynamisk än ett annat musikstycke !
- Relativt monotont!
- Stark dynamik rakt igenom!
!
Form!
- Svårt att uppfatta formbytena!
- Samma form hela vägen!
- Ja, eller mer variation i pulsen!
- Kändes som sagt som två kanske tre delar!
- Vers, brygga, refräng.!
- Mycket pauser!
- Luftigt!
- Vers & refr.?!
- Vers, ref ,vers, ref!
- Jag uppfattade absolut olika form av delar men kan inte komma ihåg dem efter en lysning!
- Då och då uppfattade jag små uppehåll men inte så mycket nya formdelar!
- Jag kände tydligt att det bytte formdelar!
!
Tonhöjd/harmoni!
- Det kittlade bra när gitarren nådde de högre registren.!
- Harmonin var ganska lätt att föreställa sig.!
- Kändes som ett lågt register!
- Jag tror mig höra en baston igenom hela stycket!
- En mörk klang, kanske nedstämda gitarrer!
- Jag hörde inga tonförändringar!
- Jag hör ej tonhöjd eller harmoni!
- Bastrumman kändes hårt och snärtig i attacken, med ett lågfrekvent ”sjungande”!
- Lågfrekvent bastrumma/bas. !
- I exempelvis den andra formdelen kändes det som att det var något högfrekvent som vibrerade konstant, kanske en synthpad eller
liknande!
!
Känsla/uttryck!
- Jag känner mig betraktad och jagad på en savann, ett rovdjur lurar i gräset!
- Känns som tung och långsam hårdrock (heavy metall)!
- Det kändes svängigt och nästan r´n´b:igt!
- Peppad!
- Bra tryck!
- Tänkte moll!
- Funky!
- Kändes som en radiolåt!
-
Glatt!
Funky!
Chill!
Detta känns som en r´n´b-låt!
Fick en metall vibb alá messugah (utan konstiga taktarter)!
Hip-hop är min spontana känsla!
Svängigt!
Goovigt trumkomp!
Lite hip-hop feeling á la Run DMC & Aerosmith – walk this way över introt!
!
Övrigt!
- Eye of the tiger.!
- maroon 5 this love!
- poplåt!
- kändes mest ”hemma” som något jag kanske lyssnar på!
- Nej inget övrigt, Jag är dock förvånad över hur mycket jag uppfattade
!!
!
!
Stimuli 4:
Bruce Springsteen performing: ”Born In The U.S.A.” from the album ”Born In The U.S.A.” (1984)
Instrumentation!
-Bas!
-Gitarr!
-Trummor!
-Till en början vad som kan uppfattas som perkusivt (trumma i olika distinkta rytmer)!
-Repetitivt.!
-En kort baston tillkom efter en stund fler instrument med längre toner men forfarande ett distinkt trumkomp!
-En slags trumma och bas eller sång tyckte jag ”hördes”!
-Kan ha varit ett tungt metalband eller en kraftfull orkester ”klassiskt”!
-Slagverk i början!
-Känns som någon slår i en gonggong!
-Pukor, det känns som det i början!
-Gitarr tror jag när det blir lite mer busy i låten senare!
-Tydlig basgång i introt tillsammans med trumpukor. !
-Rocksättning, d.v.s trummor, bas, gitarr!
-Bastrumma/bas i introt!
-Trummor och bas!
!
Tempo/puls/rytm!
-Känner en stadig puls samt kan uppfatta rytmer!
-Känner tempot väl!
-4 slag i takten !
-Bas kommer in i taktens senare hälft!
-ca. 80 BPM!
-Tempot känns, det är som en ”våg” som går över hela stycket!
-Ja 4:delarna var tydligare med rytmiska ”fills”.!
-Stompigt!
-Ganska långsamt tempo, runt 80 BPM!
-Lågt i register!
-Jag uppfattar introts rytmer och känner ett långsamt tempo i 4/4 men när allt brakar lös har jag svårt att känna tempot. Möjligt att det
går fortare i den delen!
-Högt tempo!
-Rak känsla, alltså raka åttondelar!
-Tempo och puls var tydligt, hörde en del rytmer också!
!
Dynamik!
-Det känns hur instrumentationen byggs på allt eftersom och hur energin och intensiteten ökar.!
-Klimax i slutet av låten!
-Låten börjar med distinkt rytm i början, byggs senare upp med fler instrument och blir dynamiskt kraftfullare eller ”tjockare”!
-det känns ganska dynamiskt, det började hända mer saker hela tiden!
-Det var ett långsamt ”bygg” hela stycket!
-Väldigt dynamiskt!
-Kändes som ett långt läskigt bygg, inte många pauser ganska flytande!
-Lugn till en början, mer busy senare markeringar!
-Jag upplever en viss dynamik, från introt till resterande delar uppfattar jag att dynamiken blir starkare!
-Upplevde variation mellan tre olika formdelar!
-Intensiteten gick upp och ner!
-Det kändes inte så jättedynamiskt, ganska lugnt rakt igenom!
!!
Form !
-Ganska tydliga formbyten. -Oftast kanske ett break eller ett mellanspel med låg dynamik!
-Svårt att uppfatta mer än skelettet och successiv uppbyggnad!
-Mycket av den stompiga delen kändes som att det lades på instrument efter hand!
-Svårt med form, vers 1, vers 2 ref!
-Tydlig basgång i introt tillsammans med trumpukor, efter det kommer en leadstämma (kanske sång) därefter kommer det in så många
instrument att jag inte kan urskilja dom!
-Hör bara två delar, intro och resten av låten men tror att det både finns verser och refränger!
-Uppfattade någon slags vers, brygga och refräng!
-Jag uppfattade ett intro, och att det sen kom igång och bara ”malde” på likadant till slutet!
!
Tonhöjd/Harmoni!
-Det var enklast att uppfatta vad jag var bas och trummor.!
-Harmoni var svårt!
-Rikt på kraftfulla rytmer, det till kommer en harmoni senare i stycket.!
-Bas i början !
-Lågt register!
-Mycket samma ton!
-Ref-delen är lite högre i register har jag för mig!
-Det i början känns lugnt och lägre!
-Uppfattar en tydlig basgång i introt som byter mellan två toner, den spelar mestadels på den ljusare tonen, fick en tydlig mollkänsla i
introt!
-Mot slutet upplevde jag högre toner än innan!
-Det mer lågfrekventa kändes tydligare, tex. trummor och bas!
!
Känsla/uttryck!
-En tung ganska långsam rocklåt!
-Ilska!
-Troligen någon slags rockballad!
-Jag tänker marscherande vikingar eller typ sagan om ringen ”krigare”!
-Flytande/legatoaktigt men dramatiskt !
-Dramatiskt!
-Fantiserar att det är melankoliskt och lite läskigt!
-Dramatik typ Dracula!
-Ledset!
-Molligt intro och därefter vet jag inte, kan vara folkmusik eller någon typ av thåströmsaktik låt!
-Rockig känsla!
-Mycket driv och en viss aggressionkänsla!
-Introt kändes lite grann som typ snabb reggae, jag tyckte det kändes som en bastrumma på off-beat
!Here is the original questionnaire that was used in the test.
!
!
Instruktioner till test
!
!
Introduktion
!Framför dig har du en så kallad ”shaker” eller ”kicker”. Denna kommer att leverera musikstycken
till ytan som du försiktigt placerar handen på. Musikstyckena kommer inte att vara hörbara utan
kommer bara att fysiskt kännas genom ytan till handen. Upplevelsen kan kännas onaturlig och
kanske även obehaglig i början, om du önskar avbryta testet kan du när som helst under testet ta
bort handen. Du och dina svar är helt anonyma i detta experiment. !
Frågeformuläret
Du kommer att få utvärdera vissa parametrar av upplevelsen och skriva ner dessa i formuläret
nedan. Inga svar är för luddiga eller mer/mindre obetydliga, skriv ner alla både objektiva och/eller
subjektiva ord eller förklaringar som du kommer på under testets gång. Musikstyckena kommer
bara att spelas upp en gång vardera och du kommer att få tid till att skriva efter varje stycke. Du
kommer att höra ett pip i hörlurarna några sekunder innan nästa låt spelas upp. !Glöm inte att även fylla i den första delen av formuläret där du skriver lite om dig själv. Även detta
helt anonymt.
!
Estimerad tid
Testet kommer att ta ungefär 15 minuter. Fyra musikstycken, ca. 2 minuter långa vardera kommer
att spelas upp.
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!
!
!Ålder:_____
!!
Kön: Man
Kvinna
!!
!!
!Vilket/vilka instrument spelar du? :_____________________
!!
!!
Ungefär hur många år har du hållit på med musik?
!0-1 1-3 3-5 5-8 8-11 11<
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!Hur många timmar i veckan lyssnar och/eller spelar du musik ungefär? !0-3 3-6 6-12 12-18 18<
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!Hur bekväm och van skulle du säga att du är av att analysera musik?
!Lite Medel Mycket Väldigt Mycket
!
!
!
!
!
Formulär för test
!Fyll i formuläret och svara på frågorna med ord, beskrivningar och/eller meningar som beskriver
din upplevelse på bästa sätt. Skriv så mycket som möjligt och beskriv så detaljerat du kan om vad
du känner och uppfattar, både om det är positivt, negativt, liten eller stor beskrivning. Syftet är att
förstå hur du uppfattar och extraherar information både fysiskt och känslomässigt från den
vibrerande ytan och musikstyckena. Skriv gärna också om du exempelvis känner igen något i
musiken eller kan relatera på något sätt till styckena. !Om du känner att du inte kan svara på en viss fråga så går det bra att hoppa över den och gå
vidare till nästa, men skriv i så fall gärna varför du inte kunde svara.
!!
!!
Musikstycke 1 !Kan du uppfatta något som har med instrumentationen att göra? D.V.S. kan du uppfatta några
specifika instrument eller instrumentgrupper? !!
_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!!
Kan du uppfatta tempot, pulsen och/eller några rytmer i musikstycket? Beskriv så noga som
möjligt! !_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!!
Vad kan du säga om låtens dynamik? Är stycket musikaliskt dynamiskt eller ej? Tänker du på
något annat relaterat till dynamik? !_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!!
!!
!!
Vad kan du säga om låtens form? Uppfattar du ex. pauser eller de olika formdelarna?
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!!
!
Kan du uppfatta något relaterat till tonhöjd eller harmoni från stycket? Beskriv gärna även
spektrala parametrar ex. om stycket är mer eller mindre rikt i något register!
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________ !!
!Får du någon speciell känsla eller kan du känna musikstyckets uttryck på något sätt?
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________ !!
!Övrigt. Uppfattade du något annat?
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________ !!
Musikstycke 2
!Kan du uppfatta något som har med instrumentationen att göra? D.V.S. kan du uppfatta några
specifika instrument eller instrumentgrupper? !!
_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!!
Kan du uppfatta tempot, pulsen och/eller några rytmer i musikstycket? Beskriv så noga som
möjligt! !_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!!
Vad kan du säga om låtens dynamik? Är stycket musikaliskt dynamiskt eller ej? Tänker du på
något annat relaterat till dynamik? !_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!!
!!
!!
Vad kan du säga om låtens form? Uppfattar du ex. pauser eller de olika formdelarna?
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!!
!Kan du uppfatta något relaterat till tonhöjd eller harmoni från stycket? Beskriv gärna även
spektrala parametrar ex. om stycket är mer eller mindre rikt i något register!
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________ !!
!Får du någon speciell känsla eller kan du känna musikstyckets uttryck på något sätt?
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________ !!
!Övrigt. Uppfattade du något annat?
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________ !
Musikstycke 3
!Kan du uppfatta något som har med instrumentationen att göra? D.V.S. kan du uppfatta några
specifika instrument eller instrumentgrupper? !!
_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!!
Kan du uppfatta tempot, pulsen och/eller några rytmer i musikstycket? Beskriv så noga som
möjligt! !_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!!
Vad kan du säga om låtens dynamik? Är stycket musikaliskt dynamiskt eller ej? Tänker du på
något annat relaterat till dynamik? !_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!!
!!
!!
Vad kan du säga om låtens form? Uppfattar du ex. pauser eller de olika formdelarna?
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!!
!Kan du uppfatta något relaterat till tonhöjd eller harmoni från stycket? Beskriv gärna även
spektrala parametrar ex. om stycket är mer eller mindre rikt i något register!
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________ !!
!Får du någon speciell känsla eller kan du känna musikstyckets uttryck på något sätt?
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________ !!
!Övrigt. Uppfattade du något annat?
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________ !
Musikstycke 4
!Kan du uppfatta något som har med instrumentationen att göra? D.V.S. kan du uppfatta några
specifika instrument eller instrumentgrupper? !!
_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!!
Kan du uppfatta tempot, pulsen och/eller några rytmer i musikstycket? Beskriv så noga som
möjligt! !_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!!
Vad kan du säga om låtens dynamik? Är stycket musikaliskt dynamiskt eller ej? Tänker du på
något annat relaterat till dynamik? !_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!!
!!
!!
Vad kan du säga om låtens form? Uppfattar du ex. pauser eller de olika formdelarna?
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!!
!Kan du uppfatta något relaterat till tonhöjd eller harmoni från stycket? Beskriv gärna även
spektrala parametrar ex. om stycket är mer eller mindre rikt i något register!
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________ !!
!Får du någon speciell känsla och/eller kan du känna musikstyckets uttryck på något sätt?
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________ !!
!Övrigt. Uppfattade du något annat?
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________
!_______________________________________________________________________________________ !!
!!
!!
!!
Tack för din medverkan!