1. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '991 Cross-modal integration: Alignment of auditory and visual accent structures in motion pictures Dr. Scott D. Lipscomb Institute for Music Research University of Texas at San Antonio

2. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '992 Acknowledgments University of California, Los Angeles –Dr. Roger A. Kendall & Dr. Ed Carterette University of Texas at San Antonio –Institute for Music Research Dr. Don Hodges, Director Fellow Music Researchers

3. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '993 Film Music Literature past studies deal almost exclusively with the referential aspect of musical sound –“cognitive congruency” (Marshall & Cohen, 1988) –selected others: Tannenbaum (1956), Thayer & Levenson (1984) –special issue of Psychomusicology (vol. 13, 1994) vs. accent structure alignment –i.e., how often important events in the music coincide with important events in the visual scene

4. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '994 Film Music Perception Paradigm (Lipscomb & Kendall, 1995) Aural Stimulus Visual Stimulus

5. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '995 Alignment Conditions after Yeston (1975) Consonant Out-of-phase Dissonant

6. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '996 Subject Responses … two VAME ratings synchronization: “… how often important events in the music coincide with important events in the visual scene” effectiveness: “… simply concerns [the observer’s] subjective evaluation of how well the two go together”

7. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '997 Results of Previous Study (1997) presented at Penn State ASA Conference

8. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '998 Problems with Dissonant Stimuli Solution Found

9. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '999 Revised Stimulus Preparation A-V alignment conditions were created using Media 100 software on a Macintosh G3 computer sound files were manipulated in Sonic Foundry’s Sound Forge 4.0, using the Time Compress/Expand Sonic Foundry plug-in completed A-V composites were recorded directly from Media 100 onto VHS tape

10. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '9910 Consonant Alignment Condition aligned as intended by the composer (visual & music only)

11. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '9911 Out-of-phase Alignment Condition alignment conditions based on Preliminary Study

12. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '9912 Dissonant Alignment Conditions audio tracks for the McLaren animations were “time expanded” by 115% audio tracks for the “Obsession” excerpts were “time expanded” by 110% –since these excerpts were longer, the gradual misalignment could occur at a slower pace

13. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '9913 Subject Info & Method N = 135 UTSA students taking music classes –musical training n (high = 17, mod = 31, low = 87) –gender n (female = 82, male = 53) –stimuli presented to groups of subjects stimuli were presented to subjects using a Samsung VR 5855 video cassette recorder and a ProScan PS80690 80” big screen television –VAME ratings were provided on a continuous line response anchored by either “not synchronized - synchronized” or “ineffective - effective” –each subject was assigned to one of three random stimulus presentation orders –response forms were generated so that order of VAME responses was also randomized into three versions not synchronizedsynchronized

14. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '9914 Video excerpts

15. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '9915 Statistical Analysis - Between (SPSS’s “General Linear Model - Repeated Measures”) repeated measures, fully-factorial ANOVA –three repeated measures: 2 VAME ratings x 6 AV combinations x 3 alignment conditions Tests of Between-Subjects Effects –no significant between-groups variation musical training: p = 0.090; f (2,129) = 2.457 gender: p = 0.549; f (1, 129) = 0.361 –interaction between AV combination & musical training is not statistically significant p = 0.622; f (2,129) = 0.477

16. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '9916 Statistical Analysis - Within (SPSS’s “General Linear Model - Repeated Measures”) Tests of Within-Subjects Effects –within-groups, ratings were significantly different depending upon the AV combinations p <.0005; f (5) = 20.5 –within-groups, ratings were significantly different depending upon the alignment condition p <.0005; f (2) = 173.036 Within-Subjects Interaction Effects –alignment condition x VAME p <.0005; f (2) = 3.906 –AV combination x alignment condition p <.0005; f (10) = 48.720

17. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '9917 Statistical Analysis - Within (SPSS’s “General Linear Model - Repeated Measures”) Within-Subjects Effects - complex interactions –AV combination x VAME x musical training p =.006; f (10) = 2.517 –AV combination x alignment condition x VAME p <.0005; f (10) = 3.885

18. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '9918 Experimental Results (r =.997)

19. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '9919 Experimental Results (r =.977)

20. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '9920 Experimental Results Subject Ratings Collapsed (n=3) Results of Previous Study

21. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '9921 Conclusions accent structure alignment does, in fact, play an important role in subject ratings of both “synchronization” and “effectiveness” –ANOVA & Pearson correlation coefficient based on the results of the present & previous investigations, there appears to be a dynamic relationship between the “association judgment” and “accent structure alignment” aspects of the model of Film Music Perception Revised Model

22. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '9922 Contact Info Dr. Scott D. Lipscomb UTSA Division of Music 6900 N. Loop 1604 West San Antonio, TX 78249 (210) 458-4354 (210) 458-4381 FAX lipscomb@utsa.edu http://music.utsa.edu/~lipscomb

23. August 16, 1999SMPC Conference '9923 Film Music Paradigm (revised) Perception Audio-Visual Congruence Association Judgment Accent Structure Alignment AV combination perceived as Effective AV combination perceived as Ineffective Aural Stimulus Visual Stimulus Implicit Processes No Yes