@proceedings {2022,
	title = {Comparing Musicians and Non-musicians{\textquoteright} Expectations in Music and Vision},
	year = {2022},
	month = {09/2022},
	pages = {1-8},
	publisher = {ACM},
	address = {Austria and online},
	abstract = {The role of expectation in music has been of research interest for decades. Expectation mechanisms have also received considerable attention in vision, due in part to the widespread interest in predictive coding. Past research has uncovered different types of expectations that may be formed when exposed to a sequential stimulus, such as schematic expectation (based on general knowledge) and dynamic expectation (based on properties within the current stimulus). Yet to our knowledge, a direct comparison of the relative contribution of these types of expectation has not been performed within the same subjects through careful manipulation of stimuli, nor has this comparison been made across the musical and visual domains. This listener study aims to uncover the relative influence of dynamic and schematic expectations in musical and visual stimuli, and investigate the role of expertise in forming expectations by testin g both musicians and non-musicians. Our findings suggest that musicians are indeed more sensitive than non-musicians to the dynamic and schematic properties of musical stimuli, and they generally produce a wider range of expectedness ratings than non-musicians. Interestingly, musicians also interpret schematic information in the visual condition differently than non-musicians, suggesting that musical training may have influenced their expectation mechanisms more generally.},
	keywords = {cross-modal comparison, Expectation, music, musician vs non-musician, vision},
	author = {Kat R Agres and Ting Yuan Tay and Marcus Pearce}
}
@conference {2016,
	title = {Meta4meaning: Automatic Metaphor Interpretation Using Corpus-Derived Word Associations},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Computational Creativity},
	year = {2016},
	month = {June},
	address = {Paris, France},
	abstract = {We propose a novel metaphor interpretation method, <em>Meta4meaning</em>. It provides interpretations for nominal metaphors by generating a list of properties that the metaphor expresses. Meta4meaning uses word associations extracted from a corpus to retrieve an approximation to properties of concepts. Interpretations are then obtained as an aggregation or difference of the saliences of the properties to the tenor and the vehicle. We evaluate Meta4meaning using a set of \mgwed{human-annotated} interpretations of 84 metaphors and compare with two existing methods for metaphor interpretation. Meta4meaning significantly outperforms the previous methods on this task.},
	author = {Xiao, Ping and Alnajjar, Khalid and Granroth-Wilding, Mark and Agres, Kathleen and Toivonen, Hannu}
}
@conference {32,
	title = {An auditory twist on visual search using head movement controlled ambisonics},
	booktitle = {International Computer Music Conference},
	year = {2010},
	publisher = {Ann Arbor, MI: MPublishing, University of Michigan Library},
	organization = {Ann Arbor, MI: MPublishing, University of Michigan Library},
	author = {Agres, Kat and Spencer Topel and Michael Spivey and Stephen Moseson}
}
