Earworms from three anglesEarworms from three angles

Victoria Williamson & Daniel MüllensiefenVictoria Williamson & Daniel Müllensiefen

A British Academy funded project run by the Music, Mind and Brain Group at Goldsmiths in collaboration with BBC 6Music

� Earwormery.com

� BBC 6Music site (Short reports, emails and texts)

Points of contact for our studies

What is left unanswered…What is left unanswered…

1. What triggers earworms in everyday life? Do they have a purpose?

2. Are some personalities more vulnerable than others?

3. What makes a tune sticky?

Project 1: Everyday triggersProject 1: Everyday triggers

What triggers earworms?

� Method: Qualitative analysis (grounded theory) of earworm episodes

� Result: Identification of high-risk situations

� Do they have a use?

Williamson et al., (2012) Williamson et al., (2012) Psychology of MusicPsychology of Music

� Earworm reports coded using grounded theory analysis techniques (2 independent raters)

� 6 Music corpus: 333 reports = 942 codes

� Survey (.com) corpus: 271 reports = 657 codes� Survey (.com) corpus: 271 reports = 657 codes

� Two models of codes show everyday earworm triggers and their relations

� Emphasise importance of musical exposure but also memory function, and cognitive and affective state.

Some examples of memorable reports...Some examples of memorable reports...

� Stress - My ear worm is ‘Nathan Jones' by Bananarama. I first caught it in 1989 during my GCSE chemistry exam and have been plagued by it in moments of extreme stress since, e.g. wedding, childbirth etc” (6Music Text).

� Person Association- My earworm today is ‘This Charming Man' by The Smiths because every time I see David Cameron, that song just appears in my head, for some particular reason” (6Music Emails)

Musical mediaMusical media

� 1. Live Music (e.g. concerts or gigs)

� 1. Video Media (e.g. TV, film, internet site)

� 3. Radio

� 4. Private Music (e.g. in the home or the car)� 4. Private Music (e.g. in the home or the car)

� 5. Contagion (e.g. another individual singing or humming)

� 6. Learning (e.g. practising for performance or a lesson)

� 7. Public Music (e.g. restaurant, shop or gym)

� 8. Ringtones

DiscussionDiscussion

� Musical exposure – ubiquity (Sacks, 2007; Beaman & Williams,

2010; Liikkanen, 2012)

� But also non musical association triggers in (involuntary) memory(involuntary) memory

� Heightened emotional states (including Media):

Levels of encoding = ‘resurfacing’ potential?

Project 2: Individual differencesProject 2: Individual differences

Are some people more vulnerable than others?

� Method: Statistical analysis of personality inventory (OCI-R) and factors of musical behaviour questionnaire (MuBQ) in and factors of musical behaviour questionnaire (MuBQ) in relation to INMI factors (earwormery.com)

Müllensiefen Müllensiefen et al. (et al. (in reviewin review))

� Why are we interested in OC trait?

� “people with obsessive compulsive disorder are more likely to report being troubled by earworms more likely to report being troubled by earworms – in some cases medications for OCD can minimise the effects” (Levitin, 2006, p.151)

� Let’s find out …

HypothesesHypotheses

� Individuals who measure highly on sub-clinical OC will experience more INMI that is more disturbing (Garcia-Soriano, Belloch, Morillo, & Clark, 2011)

� People who are more ‘musical’ will experience more frequent earworms (INMI) that are longer and more troubling (Beaman & Williams, 2011;

Liikkanen, 2012)

MethodMethod

� 1536 participants (58.1% women).

� M Age = 34.2, SD = 12.6, range: 12-75

� Exploratory analysis (n=512):

◦ Factor analysis of musical behaviour and INMI questionnaire

� Confirmatory analysis (n=1024):

◦ Structural equation modelling to test hypotheses between OC, musical behaviour, and INMI.

Testing HypothesesTesting Hypotheses

� Structural Equation Modelling:

◦ Only some hypotheses confirmed

◦ Good fit of final model:◦ Good fit of final model:

� adjusted goodness-of-fit = 0.929

� RMSEA index = 0.06

Results:

Only Singing is linked (positively) to INMIBut: Singing makes INMI more pleasant

OC traits = INMI Frequency and DisturbanceDisturbance

Mediated evaluative response between OC & INMI Length:High OC => INMI disturbing => longer INMIs

Similar paradoxical relationships found in OCD (Wegner et al., 1987)

To follow upTo follow up

� Should we be medicating earworms with OCD drugs?...

� Should we prescribe singing to OCD patients? …

Posters on individual differences

� G. A. Floridou, V. J. Williamson, D. Müllensiefen “Contracting Earworms: The Roles of Personality and Musicality” (Friday 3.30pm)

� M. Wammes, D. Müllensiefen, V.J. Williamson: “Schizotypal Influences on Musical Imagery

Experience” (Wednesday 11am)

Project 3: Stickiness of tunesProject 3: Stickiness of tunes

What is it that makes a tune sticky?

� Method: Computational analysis of tunes from frequently reported frequently reported earworms

� Tools: FANTASTIC software package

� Result: Classification model predicting stickiness

i.abs.std =∆pi − ∆p( )

2

i∑

N −1= 2.83

Step 1: Gathering earwormsStep 1: Gathering earworms

• ~2000 participants (.com survey)

• 1960 different earworm tunes (Artist, song title, exact part)

• Top earworm list: 5.5% of songs identifiable and named at least 3 times

MethodMethod

1. Control for popularity and recency and find ‘sticky tunes’:=> tunes with a positive residual after poisson regression (using popularity data as predictors)

2. Find tunes most similar to INMI tunes (match 2. Find tunes most similar to INMI tunes (match by genre and chart success etc.)

3. Use melodic features (Müllensiefen, 2009) of tunes to predict INMI vs non-INMI tunes (logistic regression)

DataData

Most frequent earworm tunes:

artist song incs hi.entry weeks entry.date exit.date genre

lady gaga bad romance 13 1 38 281 15 pop

lady gaga alejandro 11 7 10 253 183 pop

journeydon't stop believing 11 6 47 477 149 rock

katy perry california gurls 10 1 6 43 1 pop

Similarly successful but never mentioned as earworms:

katy perry california gurls 10 1 6 43 1 pop

queenbohemian rhapsody 7 1 17 12699 12580 rock

artist song incs hi.entry weeks entry.date exit.date genre

gorillaz feel good inc. 0 2 39 1940 1667 pop

jessica simpsonthese boots are made for walkin' 0 4 10 1800 1730 pop

stereophonicshandbags and gladrags 0 4 15 3164 3059 rock

nelly my place 0 1 11 2164 2087 pop

elvis presley way down 0 1 13 12054 11963 rock

Earworm classification modelEarworm classification model

p (earworm =1) =1

1+ e−(1.079+ 0.064 ⋅ d.median -0.723 ⋅ i.leaps)

= Longer durations and smaller intervals make tunes sticky (maybe because they are easier to sing?)(maybe because they are easier to sing?)

BUT results only preliminary, because:• Melody only one aspect of INMI

• Small sample (58 songs)

• Interactions of features

• Different types of earworms => different structural models?

� Latest analysis on 214 tunes: Sebastian Finkel (Friday 3.30pm poster session)

FINAL conclusionsFINAL conclusions� Musical exposure important (Sacks, 2007; Bailes, 2012) that is recent and repeated (Beaman & Williams, 2010); but so is the activity of non-musical, involuntary memories

� State of mental arousal (wakefulness, excitement and stress) and ‘mind wandering’ – a possible function? (Leverhulme Grant)

� Singing behaviour predicts features of INMI plus ease of singing may predict stickiness: activity of brain areas?

� Melodic structure alone is a powerful predictor of inherent stickiness

� Multi-method approach for generating future hypotheses

icmpc12earworms.comicmpc12earworms.com

Special thanks to Sagar Jilka, Sebastian Finkel, Josh Fry, Alex Handler, Mandi Goldberg, Andre Lira & all at the BBC

THANKTHANK YOUYOU!!

MUSICPSYCHOLOGY.CO.UK MUSICPSYCHOLOGY.CO.UK

(LIVE(LIVE--ISHISH BLOG OF ICMPC/ESCOM)BLOG OF ICMPC/ESCOM)

QUESTIONS??QUESTIONS??

This project was kindly supported by: