Mar 25, 2011 - Computational modeling of music cognition. â¡ Case study ... Popper, 1963) ... the end of a music performance (e.g., Hudson, 1996;. Clarke ...
The role of surprise in theory testing A case study from music cognition Henkjan Honing ILLC | CSCA University of Amsterdam www.hum.uva.nl/mcg
Friday, 25 March 2011
Thanks to ■ Institute for Logic, Language & Computation (ILLC) ■ Cognitive Science Center Amsterdam (CSCA) ■ Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW)
2 Friday, 25 March 2011
Outline ■ Computational modeling of music cognition ■ Case study How to select among alternative models? ■ What makes a model surprising? ■ Discussion ■
3 Friday, 25 March 2011
Computational modeling
Machine
4 Friday, 25 March 2011
exhibits
Behavior
agrees
Stimuli
Knowledge
models
Music
Algorithm
Behavior
exhibits
Desain & Honing (1995/2004)
Computational modeling
Machine
5 Friday, 25 March 2011
exhibits
Behavior
agrees
Stimuli
Mental Process
models
Mind
Algorithm
Behavior
exhibits
Desain & Honing (1995/2004)
Computational modeling
Machine
6 Friday, 25 March 2011
exhibits
validates
Algorithm
exhibits exhibits
Behavior
agrees
Stimuli
Mental Process
models
Mind
Behavior
Desain & Honing (1995/2004)
Model selection methods A. Measure of goodness-of-fit (e.g. Rodgers & Rowe, 2002) B. Measure of simplicity (e.g. Pitt, Myung, & Zhang, 2002) C. Measure of surprise (cf. Popper, 1963) D. ‘Ground-truth’ verification (e.g. Rijsbergen, 1979) E. ...
7 Friday, 25 March 2011
Case study ■ Computational models of expressive timing in music performance (e.g., Sundberg & Verillo, 1980;
Kronman & Sundberg, 1987; Longuet-Higgins & Lisle, 1989; Feldman, Epstein & Richards, 1992; Todd, 1992; Epstein, 1994; Todd, 1995; Friberg & Sundberg, 1999; Large & Palmer, 2002)
■ Modeling the Final Ritard: Typical slowing down at
the end of a music performance (e.g., Hudson, 1996; Clarke, 1999; Gabrielsson, 1999)
8 Friday, 25 March 2011
Honing (2006)
Two computational approaches ■ Kinematic approach (K model) Predicts shape of expressive timing patterns and how they conform to the laws of physical motion (commonality)
■ Perception-based approach (P model) Predicts the amount of expressive freedom a performer has in the interpretation of a rhythmic fragment before being ‘misinterpreted’ as an altogether different rhythm (diversity)
9 Friday, 25 March 2011
10 Friday, 25 March 2011
Repp (1992)
K model
11 Friday, 25 March 2011
v(t)=u+at
(1)
v(x)=(u2+2ax)1/2
(2)
v(x)=[1+(wq-1)x]1/q
(3)
Mechanical version of K model
12 Friday, 25 March 2011
Mechanical version of K model
13 Friday, 25 March 2011
www.hum.uva.nl/mmm/fr
Mechanical version of K model
14 Friday, 25 March 2011
P model ■ Two components: - Model of perceived regularity (tempo tracker) (Large & Jones, 1999; Toiviainen, 1999)
- Model of rhythmic categorization (quantizer) (Longuet-Higgins, 1987; Desain & Honing, 1989)
15 Friday, 25 March 2011
Effect of rhythm and tempo on predictions
16 Friday, 25 March 2011
Honing (2005)
A. Measure of good fit
17 Friday, 25 March 2011
Honing (2006)
Conclusion of method A ■ Measures of GOF only assess fit ■ GOF is not able to distinguish between variations in ■
the data caused by noise and those that the model was designed to capture Even if one model would have a significant better fit we could not select that model over the other
18 Friday, 25 March 2011
B. Measure of flexibility ‘Response area’: Range of possible predictions K model P model
19 Friday, 25 March 2011
Honing (2005)
B. Measure of flexibility Effect of note density and rhythmic structure P model
20 Friday, 25 March 2011
Honing (2005)
Conclusion of method B ■ Both models making roughly similar fits to the data ■ K model simpler than the P model ■ However, the P model show less flexibility, and should hence be preferred
21 Friday, 25 March 2011
Conclusion of method B ■ Both models making roughly similar fits to the data ■ K model simpler than the P model ■ However, the P model show less flexibility, and should hence be preferred
■ Still, we can wonder how ‘surprising’ all this is in the context of the phenomenon modeled
22 Friday, 25 March 2011
C. Element of ‘surprise’
23 Friday, 25 March 2011
Honing (2006)
C. Element of ‘surprise’
24 Friday, 25 March 2011
Honing (2006)
Towards a measure of surprise ■ ‘Confirmations [of a theory] should count only if
they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.’ (Popper, 1963:47)
25 Friday, 25 March 2011
Towards a measure of surprise ■ Correct prediction of an unlikely event is more
surprising than the correct prediction of something that was expected anyway
■ Prefer the model that: ■ Minimizes the intersection of Hpredicted with respect to Hplausable ■ While preferring the Hpredicted that is least smooth ■ ...
26 Friday, 25 March 2011
Honing & Romeijn (in prep.)
Towards a measure of surprise Prefer the model that: 1. Fits the empirical data well (best fit) 2. Makes limited range predictions (least flexible) 3. Makes unexpected predictions (most surprising)
27 Friday, 25 March 2011
Epilog Meeting a friend in the corridor, Wittgenstein said: “Tell me, why do people always say it was natural for men to assume that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth was rotating?” His friend said: “Well, obviously, because it just looks as if the sun is going round the earth.” To which the philosopher replied, “Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as if the earth was rotating?” 28 Friday, 25 March 2011
Tom Stoppard, Jumpers, 1972
Epilog Meeting a friend in the corridor, Wittgenstein said: “Tell me, why do people always say it was natural for men to assume that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth was rotating?” His friend said: “Well, obviously, because it just looks as if the sun is going round the earth.” To which the philosopher replied, “Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as if the earth was rotating?” 29 Friday, 25 March 2011
Tom Stoppard, Jumpers, 1972
References Desain, P., & Honing, H. (2004). Final Report NWO-PIONIER Project "Music, Mind, Machine". Technical Notes ILLC, X-2004-02 http://dare.uva.nl/en/record/117783 Honing, H. (2005). Music Cognition: Theory Testing and Model Selection. Proceedings of the XXVII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci2005), 38, Stresa: University of Turin Honing, H. (2006) Computational modeling of music cognition: A case study in model selection. Music Perception, 23(5), 365-376 www.hum.uva.nl/mmm/publications.html Honing, H. (2007) Preferring the best fitting, least flexible, and most surprising prediction: Towards a Bayesian approach to model selection in music cognition. Proceedings of the Society for Music Perception and Cognition (SMPC), 37, Montreal: Concordia University Roberts, S. & Pashler, H. (2000) How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review, 107(2), 358-367 Pitt, M.A., Myung, I.J., & Zsang, S. (2002) Toward a method of selecting among computational models of cognition. Psychological Review, 109(3), 472–491 Pitt, M.A., & Myung, I.J. (2002) When a good fit can be bad. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6, 421–425 Popper, K.R. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations:The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge Rodgers, J.L., & Rowe, D.C. (2002) Theory development should begin (but not end) with good empirical fits: A comment on Roberts and Pashler (2000). Psychological Review, 109(3), 599– 604 Van Rijsbergen, C. (1979) Information Retrieval. London: Butterworth
Friday, 25 March 2011