Music (sort of) and the Brain: On Fingernails and Chalkboards

If you're anything like me, the mere act of reading the words "fingernails" and "chalkboard" in the same sentence makes you cringe.  Personally, I find the most detestable sound to be that of squeaky styrofoam.

My nightmares consist entirely of 11-16.
(Table from Halpern et al.)

I applaud those brave scientists who venture to study such horrific sounds.  Back in 1986, Halpern et al. (PDF) conducted research regarding what aspects of awful sounds contribute most to our aversions. 20 years later, Randolph Blake of that et al. was awarded an Ig Nobel Prize (interview) by The Society For Improbable Research for their work.  Evidently, this recognition in 2006 of research that "first makes people laugh, then makes them think," inspired a wave of further ugly-sound studies.  In 2008, Kumar et al. (abstract) "addressed the question of what aspects of the auditory representation of such sounds are associated with judgments of unpleasantness," and Cox (abstract) seemed to negate a small part of Halpern and Blake's work while reaffirming some other parts.  Within the past month, Reuter et al. (abstract) landed an interview on NPR to talk about their recently presented work on the subject.

I'll spare you the squeaky styrofoam and other sounds because I'm such a nice guy, but listen to this:

Classically torturous.  But what is it about that sound that makes it hurt our ears so?  You should reason that the frequencies that make up this sound must play a major part, and you might reason that psychology and physiology could play roles, as well.  Let's begin with frequency, since it's most easily tested.  Since people generally describe very highly pitched sounds as more irritating than sounds in a speaking or singing range, a reasonable hypothesis would be that if one removed high frequencies from this sound, it would sound better...well, less awful.

Better, yes.  Best? Maybe.  Let's try the opposite and remove the low frequencies.

Ouch.  What about middle frequencies?

According to both the 1986 and 2011 research, people would most likely find this final sample to be the least unpleasant.  Their determined ranges were slightly different, and I used a sort of median of the two, but the effect essentially stands.

The psychological aspect is interesting but not surprising.  Reuter and his partner Oehler experimented with telling some subjects that a sound, such as fingernails on a chalkboard, was a part of a contemporary musical composition.  Subjects reported a preference for the sounds when they were thought to be musical over when they knew the source. However, measurements of skin conductance indicated that subjects responded with equal distaste, regardless of the perceived source.  This reestablishes the results of a very similar study in 1975 by D.J. Ely using skin potential.

It has also been hypothesized (I haven't yet found confirmation) in these studies that the shape of our auditory canal is such that this middling range of frequencies (about 2-5kHz) is amplified relative to higher and lower frequencies, presumably to aid in hearing people speak.  It seems possible then that even if we were to dislike high and middle frequencies of an ugly sound equally, removing that which is internally amplified thereby removes more total unpleasant sound than removing that which is not amplified.  I propose that the next logical study of this material would attempt to determine the truth of this amplification and then factor the degree of amplification into a comparison of frequency removals, thus determining if there are frequencies that we dislike more than others for no discernable reason.

There are at least two valuable directions that further research could go.  Halpern et al. compared their results to warning calls of macaque monkeys, suggesting zoological, anthropological, and even evolutionary knowledge to be gained from increased understanding of the acoustical properties of animal-generated sounds (Cox's work opposed this theory).  Reuter et al. have suggested that their research could be applied to the commercial arena—perhaps vacuums or other items could be designed to more efficiently sound less unpleasant.  While writing this post, the world's most sensitive smoke alarm went off in my family's house and I couldn't help but wonder if they could be made less irritating with an innovative application of this type of knowledge.  A combination of these studies even suggests that hearing aids could be designed to cut out the most displeasing frequencies of only unpleasant audio.

Of course, musicians will find a way to apply any additional acoustic knowledge to their work.  Therefore, this is totally relevant to my blog.

---

I lament that there doesn't seem to be a complete, published paper by Reuter et al., at least not yet (but I couldn't wait any longer).  I have no way to draw further information from their raw data or even determine how they decided what frequency range qualified as that which the ear is most sensitive to — I assumed they cited some other work, but in my search of all of their cited work, nothing seems to present such research.  They presented their work in a 15 minute session at a meeting of the Acoustical Society of America in San Diego on November third. (Edit: I asked Dr. Reuter about this and received a response, which I discuss in my next post.)



Cox, Trevor J. (2008). Scraping sounds and disgusting noises Applied Acoustics, 69 (12), 1195-1204 DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2007.11.004


Halpern, D.L., Blake R., and Hillenbrand J. (1986). Psychoacoustics of a chilling sound. Perception & psychophysics, 39 (2), 77-80 PMID: 3725541


Kumar, S., Forster, H., Bailey, P., and Griffiths, T. (2008). Mapping unpleasantness of sounds to their auditory representation The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 124 (6) DOI: 10.1121/1.3006380


Reuter,  Christoph, and Michael Oehler (2011). Psychoacoustics of chalkboard squeaking. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130 (4), 2545

Church, State, and the Ambiguity of Banquets

When a school endorses, even tacitly, a religious viewpoint, they send a message of coercion to students and the community.  This is a tribalistic coercion, one that religious institutions thrive upon — those who aren't inclined to be chastised, embarrassed, or shunned are alternatively inclined to feign agreement with others.  This is why religion and government must be completely separated.  If you doubt this notion, or wish for further background on my thoughts, please read my previous post on school-sponsored prayer.

At our soccer banquet a few weeks ago, just before the event officially began, the head coach was speaking to a parent and I was standing nearby.  They turned to me and asked if I would deliver the opening prayer.

"Isn't this a school-sponsored event?" I asked.  They looked puzzled.  "If this is officially a school-sponsored event, that would be illegal."

"Well, the school didn't arrange this, we organized it ourselves," said the parent.  The banquet was hosted by a local church.

I don't remember my next statement as clearly, but the question of organization did punch a dart-sized hole in the sails of my argument.  "I understand, but I'm still not sure if we can do that," I responded, referring to the entire group being led in prayer.

Upon hearing the head coach's next statement, my heart sunk and my blood boiled: "It doesn't matter anyway, we're doing it."  They walked away.

I did nothing and the prayer was led by one of our players.  While irrelevant, he spoke well and thoughtfully.  More relevantly, he did not ramble about Jesus, but otherwise spoke directly and explicitly to God.

Lee v. Weisman is of vital importance here.  The Supreme Court determined that a school-endorsed, even nonsectarian, prayer at a public high school graduation ceremony is unconstitutional.  The decision uses strong language in opposition to such school endorsement (emphasis always mine):

The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause, which guarantees at a minimum that a government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise...

...supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places subtle and indirect public and peer pressure on attending students to stand as a group or maintain respectful silence during the invocation and benediction. A reasonable dissenter of high school age could believe that standing or remaining silent signified her own participation in, or approval of, the group exercise, rather than her respect for it. And the State may not place the student dissenter in the dilemma of participating or protesting.

However, there are aspects of the decision that indicate it does not apply 100% to such athletic banquet situations:

Petitioners' argument that the option of not attending the ceremony excuses any inducement or coercion in the ceremony itself is rejected. In this society, high school graduation is one of life's most significant occasions, and a student is not free to absent herself from the exercise in any real sense of the term "voluntary."

Lee's decision that prayers should be given and his selection of the religious participant are choices attributable to the State. Moreover, through the pamphlet and his advice that the prayers be nonsectarian, he directed and controlled the prayers' content.

While our banquet had no pamphlet, no direct control over the prayer, no clergy involved, and is surely considered more voluntary than graduation, the wording regarding pressure and coercion seem to readily apply.  Maybe there's more...

Ah, yes, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe.  As a conclusion to a debacle in which a school district twisted themselves into knots in order to support an invocation at their football games (the prayer was argued to be "student-led," and "private speech,"), the Supreme Court decided that even at this extracurricular, athletic event, and even with a student-body-elected student speaker, such endorsed prayer is unconstitutional. Some choice quotes:

The second part of the District’s argument–that there is no coercion here because attendance at an extracurricular event, unlike a graduation ceremony, is voluntary–is unpersuasive. For some students, such as cheerleaders, members of the band, and the team members themselves, attendance at football games is mandated, sometimes for class credit. The District’s argument also minimizes the immense social pressure, or truly genuine desire, felt by many students to be involved in the extracurricular event that is American high school football.... The Constitution demands that schools not force on students the difficult choice between whether to attend these games or to risk facing a personally offensive religious ritual.

...the District has established a governmental mechanism that turns the school into a forum for religious debate and empowers the student body majority to subject students of minority views to constitutionally improper messages. The award of that power alone is not acceptable.

There isn't much in this decision that can't be argued applies completely to our banquet, but there is a catch in the use of the term, "official,"

A conclusion that the message is not “private speech” is also established by factors beyond the policy’s text, including the official setting in which the invocation is delivered....

Where is the "official" line drawn?  At administrative endorsement?  At a coach's introduction?  At some degree of involuntary attendance?

---

A few days after our banquet, I spoke to our Athletic Director.  We had a very good discussion regarding the gray areas involved, as well as the nature of our community and, frankly, the desire to retain quality coaches.  We both agreed that if a significant challenge to this prayer were to be made, it would be much more effective if a student or parent initiated it.  A court might even say that as a teacher, I am above the kind of social pressure discussed in the cases above, and therefore am not harmed and have no standing to complain.  Ultimately, however, in a community where invocations are expected, challenges aren't made, and retainment of key coaches may depend on their ability to run banquets as they please, what student would dare step up?  Perhaps I should try to convince Jessica Ahlquist to move here and join the soccer team.

In the end...I hope it's the end...the AD spoke to the Superintendent and decided to send an email to all head coaches.  He asked that instead of inviting prayer, they lead a "moment of reflection" instead.  While the ardent crusader of principles in me is tempted to dig into Wallace v. Jaffree and the possibly contradictory Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act in Illinois, I'm satisfied for now...

...and a little nervous about our spring soccer season.  I've had no contact with the head soccer coach since that email was sent.

Performance Incentives Part 2

There is a very unique individual on our soccer team.  He works fairly hard and has made notable improvements, but he is, quite frankly, most likely completely unable to reach the skill level of the next least capable player on our team.  Not for many years.  There seems to be a disconnect between what his brain intends and what his muscles do in response that I would call impossible to ignore.  His movements are jerky and awkward, far beyond the point of a lanky teenager after an extreme growth spurt.  His head jostles, tilted, when he runs.  Furthermore, he has a brand of humor and interpersonal skills that initially left his teammates speechless.  When he began the season without speaking much, it seemed reasonable to hypothesize about where he fits on the autistic spectrum, but he soon opened up and became less inhibited than almost any other player.  I do not have the adequate training to postulate what makes his mind so different than that of his peers, but it's very clearly different.

The funny thing is that while he has a Gifted Individualized Education Plan (GIEP), he doesn't have any other IEP stuff or diagnosis of any sort of mental variation from the norm.  Side note; while he's considered gifted, he isn't taking any honors classes...but I don't know how common that is.  I've spoken to his guidance counselor and have information from his nurse as well.  His parents, I'm told, have some similar social characteristics.

I'll admit to having a debatably unfair curiosity about the psychology (and perhaps neurology) of this player (and perhaps his parents), but I don't want that to detract from a point I'd like to make about incentives.

This student very likely receives an "advanced" rating in most categories tested by the state, and because of that, the school has no incentive to seek clarity in their understanding of his psychology.  To clarify, a school has three possible incentives to evaluate a student for an IEP or any other form of support:

1) Parents' request.  Federal law requires that schools thoroughly follow through on these.  In this student's case, this hasn't happened and probably never will.
2) Inadequate state test scores.  As discussed in Performance Incentives Part 1, schools invest a lot of energy and resources into these students.  In this case, this incentive doesn't exist because his tests are fine.
3) Righteousness.  Alas, there isn't much room for this when higher priorities (test scores, dangerous behavioral issues, maintaining a safe environment, addressing abusive situations) exist.

The third possible incentive is one that understandably ranks low in priority, and that is the crux of the point I'm making.  If "test scores" could be removed from the list of things that trump a righteous moral obligation to understand every student well enough to prepare them as well as possible for their adult lives, schools would be more capable of providing their best support to every student.