Tool or Actor? Expert Improvisers’ Evaluation of a Musical AI “Toddler”
Computer Music Journal, ISSN: 1531-5169, Vol: 46, Issue: 4, Page: 26-42
2022
- 14Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures14
- Readers14
- 14
Article Description
In this article, we introduce the coadaptive audiovisual instrument, CAVI. This instrument uses deep learning to generate control signals based on muscle and motion data of a performer’s actions. The generated signals control time-based live sound-processing modules. How does a performer perceive such an instrument? Does it feel like a machine learning–based musical tool? Or is it an actor with the potential to become a musical partner? We report on an evaluation of CAVI after it had been used in two public performances. The evaluation is based on interviews with the performers, audience questionnaires, and the creator’s self-analysis. Our findings suggest that the perception of CAVI as a tool or actor correlates with the performer’s sense of agency. The perceived agency changes throughout a performance based on several factors, including perceived musical coordination, the balance between surprise and familiarity, a “common sense,” and the physical characteristics of the performance setting.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85192859590&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/comj_a_00657; https://direct.mit.edu/comj/article/46/4/26/118092/Tool-or-Actor-Expert-Improvisers-Evaluation-of-a; https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/comj_a_00657; https://direct.mit.edu/comj/article-abstract/46/4/26/118092/Tool-or-Actor-Expert-Improvisers-Evaluation-of-a?redirectedFrom=fulltext
MIT Press
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know