1. Sound: Neuendorf Research

2. Dr. N’s Research on Sound/Music  Effects of Music Score Type on Spectator Response  With FRAMES members Andrew Scheid, Matt Egizii, Alex Farmer, & others  Documentary Impact: Moving Image vs. Sound Only vs. Text  With Dr. Jill Rudd and FRAMES members Matt Egizii and Rachel Campbell  Audio-visual Translation (AVT): Subtitling vs. Dubbing  With FRAMES members Kara Rader and the late Dr. Paul Skalski  Effects of a Laugh Track on Spectator Response  With colleagues at Michigan State and at Cleveland State  Contradictory Sound (planned)  With FRAMES members Alex Farmer and Tara Burns

3. Music Scoring Study #1  Paper presented to the International Society for Presence Research, Philadelphia, PA, in 2012  “Sunset Gates” short film, with three different scores:  Version 1: Rock music compilation score  Version 2: Orchestral score  Version 3: No music  n = 101 CSU students  Generally, the “rock music” condition resulted in depressed (lower) emotional responses, regardless of positive/negative tone, when asked whether the film “made you feel…”

4. Angry p <.10 overall Post hocs: Rock vs. Orchestral 0-10 response scale

5. Surprised p <.10 overall Post hocs: Rock vs. No

6. Aggressive p <.10 overall Post hocs: Rock vs. No

7. Tender p <.10 overall Post hocs: Rock vs. No

8. Fearful p <.10 overall Post hocs: Rock vs. Orchestral/No

9. Sad p <.05 overall Post hocs: Rock vs. Orchestral

10. Awestruck p <.05 overall Post hocs: Rock vs. Orchestral/No

11. Disappointed p <.05 overall Post hocs: Rock vs. Orchestral

12. Remorseful p <.10 overall Post hocs: Rock vs. Orchestral/No

13. Anticipation p <.05 overall Post hocs: No vs. Rock/Orchestral

14. Happy p = n.s. Other n.s.: Joyful Loving Optimistic Amused

15. Music Score Type (Rock vs. Orchestral vs. None) did not relate to:  Presence  Social Richness (TPI)  Social Presence-Passive interpersonal (TPI)  Engagement/Mental immersion (TPI)  Situational spatial (MEC)  Spatial presence-self location (MEC)  General evaluations of the film, e.g.,  Good/Bad  Interesting/Boring  Strong/Weak

16. Music Scoring Study #2--planned  “Chase Her” short film shot and edited  Three genre music types to be produced by composer James Newberry: Version 1 = Romantic Version 2 = Noir/Mystery Version 3 = Action

17. AVT Study (Dubbing vs. Subtitling)  Paper to be presented to the International Communication Association in Puerto Rico in May 2015  FILM: “Life is Beautiful” (1997)  Version 1: Dubbed to English  Version 2: Italian with English subtitles  n = 168 CSU students

18. Dubbing vs. Subtitling  NO simple, main effects differences in:  Recall Visual Dialogue Narrative  Enjoyment  However, interactions were found with certain intercultural experience indicators...

19. Visual Recall: Condition x Foreign Language Exposure  p <.05

20. Dialogue Recall: Condition x Foreign Language Exposure  p <.10

21. Enjoyment: Condition x Intercultural Exposure  p <.01

22. Documentary Modality Study:  Paper presented to the National Communication Association, Orlando, FL, 2012  200 participants recruited from introductory courses in Communication at CSU, randomly assigned to four online conditions:  Version 1: Video (n=69)  Version 2: Sound-only (n=43)  Version 3: Transcript (n=52)  Version 4: Control Group (n=36)

23.  Footage of first-person source:

24.  “B” roll/cutaway images:

25. Documentary: NO Differences among the Three Delivery Modes (Video vs. Sound Only vs. Transcript):  ATP – Attitudes Toward Prisoners (17 item scale; Melvin et al.)  ATP Women – Attitudes Toward Women Prisoners (17 item scale)  Narrative Transportation (10 item scale; Green & Brock)  Presence of several types (scales for TPI Active Interpersonal, TPI Engagement, TPI Social Richness, MECA Attention Allocation)

26. Documentary: Key Differences among the Three Delivery Modes  Enjoyment (13 item scale, adapted from Krcmar & Renfro) (p =.059)  Video = 29.98  Sound only = 34.78  Transcript = 33.42  Total Knowledge (11 item scale) (p =.040)  Video = 8.54  Sound only = 8.19  Transcript = 9.23

27. Effects of a Laugh Track on Spectator Response— Two Studies  Study #1—Published in 1988 in Central States Speech Journal  Study #2—Published in 2009 in Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media  Still almost the only studies published on this topic

28. Laugh Track Study #1  Segment of film Nobody’s Perfekt (1981) was used in two versions:  Version 1: No laugh track  Version 2: Laugh track (added, edited from comedy albums by Richard Pryor)  n = 94 students at Michigan State University, in groups of 3-5  Participants were video recorded as they viewed, and their “mirth behaviors” were coded

29. Laugh Track Study #1--Results  Impact on Perceived Funniness Ratings:  Laugh Track vs. No Laugh Track had no impact  Group membership had a significant impact  Scene (n=6) had a significant impact  Impact on Mirth Behaviors:  Laugh Track produced significantly more mirth than No Laugh Track  Group membership had a significant impact  Scene (n=6) had a significant impact  Also, there was a positive correlation (r =.66) between Scene funniness and Scene behavioral effect (effect of laugh track)

30. 30 Laugh Track Study #2  Experimental design:  4 episodes of Andy Griffith  Each in two versions Version 1: No laugh track (serendipitous acquisition by co-investigator Jim Denny) Version 2: Laugh track  Subjects = 114 students at CSU, in groups of 2-5  Subjects were video recorded as they watched the episode

31. 31 Total perceived funniness scores (across 20 comic points) by condition and episode Main effect for laugh track: ns Main effect for episode: F(3,106)=5.32, p=.002 Interaction effect: F(3,106)=3.06, p=.031

32. 32 Social presence/active interpersonal by condition Main effect for laugh track: F(1,106)=0.01, p=.91 Main effect for episode: F(3,106)=1.95, p=.13 Interaction effect: F(3,106)=4.49, p=.005

33. 33 Engagement Presence by condition Main effect for laugh track: F(1,106)=0.86, p=.36 Main effect for episode: F(3,106)=1.79, p=.15 Interaction effect: F(3,106)=2.78, p=.045

34. Contradictory Sound (planned)  A most BASIC test of whether we believe our ears or our eyes  Footage shot and edited; instrument prepared  Examples:  Running man steps on metal plate, we hear splash  Running man steps on plastic bottle, we hear glass breaking  Car drives away, we hear a bus  Man runs into boxes, we hear bottles

35. end