Rigorous Empirical Evaluation of Sound and Music Computing Research

At the NordicSMC conference last week, I was part of a panel discussing the topic Rigorous Empirical Evaluation of SMC Research. This was the original description of the session:

The goal of this session is to share, discuss, and appraise the topic of evaluation in the context of SMC research and development. Evaluation is a cornerstone of every scientific research domain, but is a complex subject in our context due to the interdisciplinary nature of SMC coupled with the subjectivity involved in assessing creative endeavours. As SMC research proliferates across the world, the relevance of robust, rigorous empirical evaluation is ever-increasing in the academic and industrial realms. The session will begin with presentations from representatives of NordicSMC member universities, followed by a more free-flowing discussion among these panel members, followed by audience involvement.

The discussion was moderated by Sofia Dahl (Aalborg University) and consisted of Nashmin Yeganeh (University of Iceland), Razvan Paisa (Aalborg University), and Roberto Bresin (KTH).

The challenge of interdisciplinarity

Everyone in the panel agreed that rigorous evaluation is important. The challenge is to figure out what type(s) of evaluation is useful and plausible within sound and music computing research. This was efficiently illustrated in a list of the different methods that are employed by the researchers at KTH.

A list of methods in use by the sound and music computing researchers at KTH.

Roberto Bresin had divided the KTH list into methods that they have been working with for decades (in red) and newer methods that they are currently exploring. The challenge is that each of these methods requires different knowledge and skills, and they all have different types of evaluation.

Although we have a slightly different research profile at UiO than at KTH, we also have a breadth of methodological approaches in SMC-related research. I pointed to a model I often use to explain what we are doing:

A simplified model of explaining my research approach.

The model has two axes. One shows a continuum between artistic and scientific research methods and outputs. Another is a continuum between performing research on natural and cultural phenomena. In addition, we develop and use various types of technologies for all of these.

The reason I like to bring up this model is to explain that things are connected. I often hear that artistic and scientific research are completely different things. Sure, they are different, but there are also commonalities. Similarly, there is an often unnecessary divide between the humanities and the social and natural sciences. True, they have different foci but when studying music we need to take all of these into account. Music involves everything from “low-level” sensory phenomena to “high-level” emotional responses. One can focus on one or the other, but if we really want to understand musical experiences – or make new ones for that matter – we need to see the whole picture. Thus, evaluations of whatever we do also need to have a holistic approach.

Open Research as a Tool for Rigorous Evaluation

My entry into the panel discussion was that we should use the ongoing transition to Open Research practices as an opportunity to also perform more rigorous evaluations. I have previously argued why I believe open research is better research. The main argument is that sharing things (methods, code, data, publications, etc.) openly forces researchers to document everything better. Nobody wants to make sloppy things publicly available. So the process of making all the different parts of the open research puzzle openly available is a critical component of a rigorous evaluation.

In the process of making everything open, we realize, for example, that we need better tools and systems. We also experience that we need to think more carefully about privacy and copyright. That is also part of the evaluation process and lays the ground for other researchers to scrutinize what we are doing.

Summing up

One of the challenges of discussing rigorous evaluation in the “field” of sound and music computing is that we are not talking about one discipline with one method. Instead, we are talking about a set of approaches to developing and using computational methods for sound and music signals and experiences. If you need to read that sentence a couple of times, it is understandable. Yes, we are combining a lot of different things. And, yes, we are coming from different backgrounds: the arts and humanities, the social and natural sciences, and engineering. That is exactly what is cool about this community. But it is also why it is challenging to agree on what a rigorous evaluation should be!

Nordic Sound and Music Computing Network up and running

I am super excited about our new Nordic Sound and Music Computing Network, which has just started up with funding from the Nordic Research Council.

This network brings together a group of internationally leading sound and music computing researchers from institutions in five Nordic countries: Aalborg University, Aalto University, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, University of Iceland, and University of Oslo. The network covers the field of sound and music from the “soft” to the “hard,” including the arts and humanities, and the social and natural sciences, as well as engineering, and involves a high level of technological competency.

At the University of Oslo we have one open PhD fellowship connected to the network, with application deadline 4 April 2018. We invite PhD proposals that focus on sound/music interaction with periodic/rhythmic human body motion (walking, running, training, etc.). The appointed candidate is expected to carry out observation studies of human body motion in real-life settings, using different types of mobile motion capture systems (full-body suit and individual trackers). Results from the analysis of these observation studies should form the basis for the development of prototype systems for using such periodic/rhythmic motion in musical interaction.

The appointed candidate will benefit from the combined expertise within the NordicSMC network, and is expected to carry out one or more short-term scientific missions to the other partners. At UiO, the candidate will be affiliated with RITMO Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Rhythm, Time and Motion. This interdisciplinary centre focuses on rhythm as a structuring mechanism for the temporal dimensions of human life. RITMO researchers span the fields of musicology, psychology and informatics, and have access to state-of-the-art facilities in sound/video recording, motion capture, eye tracking, physiological measurements, various types of brain imaging (EEG, fMRI), and rapid prototyping and robotics laboratories.

Rules for computing happiness

This, and several other recent and forthcoming blog posts, have been lying in the drafts folder of my blog writing software (MarsEdit) for a while (some for more than 4 years…). I am currently going through the drafts one by one, deleting most of them, but also posting a few. Here is one I started writing back in 2009:

Alex Payne has published a list of rules for computing happiness. I don’t agree with all of them, but many of them resonate with my own thoughts. Here is a condensed list, based on the things I find most important:

  • Use as little software as possible.
  • Use software that does one thing well, do not use software that does many things poorly.
  • Do not use software that must sync over the internet to function.
  • Use a plain text editor that you know well.  Not a word processor, a plain text editor.
  • Do not use software that’s unmaintained.
  • Pay for software that’s worth paying for, but only after evaluating it for no less than two weeks.
  • Keep as much as possible in plain text. Not Word or Pages documents, plain text.
  • For tasks that plain text doesn’t fit, store documents in an open standard file format if possible.

Particularly the last ones, about using plain text files rather than a bunch of proprietary formats, is something I have been more concerned about recently.