Joseph Devlin
February 2020

What do you work on?

I am inter­est­ed in how the world outside of acad­e­mia uses Psy­chol­o­gy and Neu­ro­science to address real-world prob­lems. This broadly falls under the cat­e­go­ry of “neu­ro­mar­ket­ing” or “edu­ca­tion­al neu­ro­science”, although I’m not in love with either of those terms. In a nut­shell, I am inter­est­ed in using the methods, tech­niques and insights from acad­e­mia to address real-world prob­lems in robust, sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly rig­or­ous and novel ways.

What did you do using Gorilla?

We ran an experiment in part­ner­ship with Audible, that inves­ti­gat­ed whether people respond dif­fer­ent­ly to emo­tion­al­ly engag­ing scenes when they are deliv­ered in video or audio­book format. 102 vol­un­teers (aged 18 – 55) watched clips and lis­tened to audio­book scenes from eight block­busters and best­sellers: Game of Thrones, Girl On The Train, Pride & Prej­u­dice, Silence of the Lambs, Great Expec­ta­tions, The Da Vinci Code, Hound of the Baskervilles, and Alien. Spe­cif­ic scenes from each title were select­ed based on their emo­tion­al inten­si­ty, com­par­a­tive length, and sim­i­lar­i­ty of nar­ra­tive (i.e. minimal dif­fer­ences in the sto­ry­line between audio and video adap­ta­tions). The stories were pre­sent­ed using Gorilla and after each one, par­tic­i­pants were asked about their engage­ment with the story. At the same time, we record­ed implic­it phys­i­o­log­i­cal mea­sure­ments such as heart rate and elec­tro­der­mal activ­i­ty using bio­met­ric sensors on the par­tic­i­pants because these phys­i­o­log­i­cal signals can reveal cog­ni­tive pro­cess­ing and sub-con­scious emo­tion­al arousal in the brain.

“An analy­sis of par­tic­i­pants’ bio­log­i­cal data revealed that lis­ten­ing to audio­books elicit­ed a more intense phys­i­o­log­i­cal and emo­tion­al reac­tion than watch­ing a screen.”

What was your study protocol?

Par­tic­i­pants received infor­ma­tion about the experiment and then pro­vid­ed informed consent. They then answered a few ques­tions about their current mood, media expe­ri­ence, per­son­al­i­ty, etc before watching/listening to short excerpts from 8 popular books. These were either pre­sent­ed as videos (4) or audio­book (4) and par­tic­i­pants then answered some ques­tions about their expe­ri­ence and engage­ment with each story. At the same time, par­tic­i­pants were wearing bio­met­ric sensors record­ing heart rate, gal­van­ic skin response, body tem­per­a­ture, and accel­er­a­tion (ie arm move­ment) data so that we had a com­bi­na­tion of explic­it, self-report mea­sure­ments (from Gorilla) and implic­it, phys­i­o­log­i­cal mea­sure­ments (from the bio­met­ric sensors). This allowed us to compare the two and inves­ti­gate the extent to which they pro­vid­ed com­ple­men­tary infor­ma­tion about engag­ing with the stories.

What did you find?

We found that par­tic­i­pants explic­it­ly rated the videos as more engag­ing than the audio­books but an analy­sis of par­tic­i­pants’ bio­log­i­cal data revealed that lis­ten­ing to audio­books elicit­ed a more intense phys­i­o­log­i­cal and emo­tion­al reac­tion than watch­ing a screen. For instance, our vol­un­teers had higher heart rates by an average of 2 beats per minute; their elec­tro­der­mal activ­i­ty (a measure of auto­nom­ic nervous system response due to emo­tion­al inten­si­ty) was higher and their body tem­per­a­ture was even 0.37C degrees warmer when lis­ten­ing to the audio­book clips rel­a­tive to watch­ing the videos. This is despite the fact that for both types of clips, par­tic­i­pants were sitting in a quiet, dark­ened room. They even had higher highs and lower lows in their heart rates when lis­ten­ing versus watch­ing, sug­gest­ing stronger emo­tion­al ampli­fi­ca­tion. There is an example of these find­ings based on the scene in Game of Thrones where Ned Stark scene is behead­ed avail­able below, and on YouTube here.

We inter­pret our results as evi­dence that lis­ten­ing to audio­books is a more emo­tion­al­ly engag­ing way of enjoy­ing a story than watch­ing that same story as a video. We hypoth­e­size this is a result of the more active imag­i­na­tion process­es that a lis­ten­er pro­duces rel­a­tive to the more passive viewing of a video. In other words, when lis­ten­ing, you active­ly sim­u­late the story in your mind, a process that is more demand­ing than pas­sive­ly taking in the vision of the direc­tor of a video. As a result, there are stronger phys­i­o­log­i­cal signals of this engagement.

Has this study been published?

The paper is cur­rent­ly under con­sid­er­a­tion at PLOSone but a pre-print is avail­able on bioRxiv here for anyone inter­est­ed in the full details.

What is the biggest advan­tage of online research methods?

Better sam­pling of the pop­u­la­tion. You not only get a wider demo­graph­ic spread but also get to test much larger numbers.

“The fact that the data are auto­mat­i­cal­ly coded with uni­ver­sal time stamps is helpful in linking the explic­it behav­iour­al data from Gorilla with the implic­it phys­i­o­log­i­cal data from the bio­met­ric sensors.”

How do you think online research is going to change your field?

I think it facil­i­tates col­lect­ing behav­iour­al data on a wider scale but I’m not sure that is chang­ing our field so much as evolv­ing it. To my mind, behav­iour­al data are par­tic­u­lar­ly useful when com­bined with other types of data (phys­i­o­log­i­cal, neural) – at least in answer­ing the ques­tions I am most inter­est­ed in. In this sense, the current form of Gorilla is prob­a­bly a step­ping stone towards a more inte­grat­ed data col­lec­tion scheme in the future. Goril­la’s new eye- and mouse-track­ing fea­tures are a good start!

For you, what is the stand-out feature in Gorilla?

Ability to do web-based data col­lec­tion. It also has nice teach­ing fea­tures for our under­grad­u­ates, not all of whom learn to code as well as one might hope.

Why did you choose Gorilla?

Col­leagues of mine were using it for web-based exper­i­ments as well as within the lab. For behav­iour­al exper­i­ments, it is really easy-to-use, con­ve­nient and scalable.

How did Gorilla make your life or research better, easier or faster?

For this par­tic­u­lar experiment, the fact that the data are auto­mat­i­cal­ly coded with uni­ver­sal time stamps is helpful in linking the explic­it behav­iour­al data from Gorilla with the implic­it phys­i­o­log­i­cal data from the bio­met­ric sensors (that also use UTC stamps).

What improve­ments would you like to see in Gorilla to make your research easier?

Under Task Struc­ture, I find the display editor some­what clunky to use. It would be helpful if it were much larger and allowed the ability to preview layouts, fonts, etc without having to commit a new version each time.

Response from Gorilla:

Hi Joseph,

We agree that a larger size would be helpful. We’re working on a new user inter­face for that screen and several others. It will hope­ful­ly come out later this year.

In Gorilla you can preview content without having to commit a new version every time. When you preview you’ll always see the latest set­tings, even if it hasn’t been committed.

What chal­lenges are you facing in your area of behav­iour­al science?

For me, I often want to combine large web-based samples with smaller datasets where I can collect addi­tion­al phys­i­o­log­i­cal data. At the moment, there is no way to do both of these simul­ta­ne­ous­ly. Things things like Fitbits, Apple and Samsung watches offer the poten­tial for col­lect­ing bio­met­ric data in the future. Col­lec­tion of eye­track­ing data using laptop webcams looks to be pos­si­ble now in Gorilla.

What real-world problem do you see that your research could impact?

How to choose?! My work is direct­ly related to under­stand­ing how audi­ences engage and there­fore is rel­e­vant to content providers (movies, TV, online), live per­for­mance (music, theatre, dance, comedy), mar­ket­ing and com­mu­ni­ca­tions (cor­po­rate, health, charity, polit­i­cal), edu­ca­tion, and prob­a­bly even law if you con­sid­er court­room “per­for­mances” and jurors as “audi­ence.” Real-world prob­lems are the focus of my current research program.

What do you believe to be true that you cannot prove (yet)?

I believe that human lan­guage ability is a direct result of small changes in brain wiring between us and our primate cousins, pre­sum­ably down to minor genetic changes affect­ing the action of axon growth cones.

What are the main ways people mis­un­der­stand your thesis?

Changes to brain wiring are more trans­for­ma­tive than simply linking two dif­fer­ent regions togeth­er – they fun­da­men­tal­ly alter the nature of the infor­ma­tion pro­cess­ing but this dis­tinc­tion is often missed.

What do you not believe, that the major­i­ty in your field do believe?

I think the impor­tance of lat­er­al­i­ty in the brain is vastly over stated.

What is the most excit­ing piece of research you’ve ever done?

My friend and col­league, Daniel Richard­son and I, did a fab­u­lous little experiment where we put to the test the idea that people can tell food cooked on a char­coal BBQ from food cooked on a gas BBQ. As an avid BBQer devoted to my char­coal Weber grill, I knew char­coal was better but I got a chance to prove this when we were invited by the Times news­pa­per to run London’s first BBQ experiment (July 2013). To my horror, neither myself nor the people we tested could reli­ably tell food cooked on a char­coal grill from the same food cooked on a gas grill in blind taste tests. It was, and remains, my favourite example of cog­ni­tive bias over­rid­ing ratio­nal deci­sion making – even though I con­duct­ed the experiment and eval­u­at­ed the evi­dence, I still don’t believe (at an emo­tion­al level) my own results and con­tin­ue to swear by char­coal grill. Intel­lec­tu­al­ly, I know I’m wrong as I col­lect­ed the evi­dence to prove it! Prob­a­bly the most fun experiment I’ve ever run.

What advice would you give to someone start­ing out in behav­iour­al science/research?

Work hard and do what you love. Make an effort to make every­thing you do as acces­si­ble as pos­si­ble to a wide audience.

If you could inter­view any researcher (alive or dead), who would it be and why?

Alan Turing, the father of com­put­ing. Turing saw so much further that anyone around him and his vision trans­formed our society. But even in the 1920s/30s he foresaw some of the impli­ca­tions of his work, describ­ing soft­ware engi­neers and AI as con­se­quences of his theory of com­putable numbers (which was very the­o­ret­i­cal). I’d love to under­stand more of how he thought.

Who or what orig­i­nal­ly inspired you to work in your field of research?

There is an AI called Mike in Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mis­tress that inspired me to do my PhD in AI. Sadly, the reality of AI didn’t meet the excite­ment that was Mike, and I tran­si­tioned from arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence into natural intel­li­gence. I studied the neu­ro­bi­ol­o­gy of lan­guage for about 20 years before becom­ing inter­est­ed in how psy­chol­o­gy and neu­ro­science are used by the wider com­mu­ni­ty (e.g. busi­ness, edu­ca­tion, gov­ern­ment, etc) which is how I ended up working in con­sumer neuroscience.

On a per­son­al level, what are you most proud of?

My family. I have an amazing wife and two fab­u­lous daugh­ters, who are each a force of nature. I try to keep up!

When you’re not working, what do you enjoy doing?

BBQing, reading, fight­ing (martial arts).

What science book have you read recent­ly that you’d rec­om­mend to others?

I love David Hand’s Improb­a­bil­i­ty Prin­ci­ple. David explains why unbe­liev­ably improb­a­ble events (like winning the lottery twice or getting hit by light­ning mul­ti­ple times) happen all the time. The strands of his argu­ment (selec­tion bias, law of large numbers, prob­a­bil­i­ty levers, etc) are things we rou­tine­ly deal with as data sci­en­tists but often over­look their impor­tance. Although it is not the focus of the book, this was the best expla­na­tion of the repli­ca­tion crisis in psy­chol­o­gy that I’ve read and it forced me to think care­ful­ly about so many aspects of my data han­dling life that I was taking for granted. Very acces­si­ble and easy to read and very pow­er­ful too.

What’s your favourite STEM joke?

There are 10 types of people in this world: those who know binary and those who don’t.

 

Joseph Devlin
Consumer Neuroscience
Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience & Vice-dean (Enterprise & Innovation) for the Faculty of Brain Sciences
UCL
Joseph Devlin

Ready to get started?

More Spotlight Interviews

Matthew Hunt

Matthew Hunt

[get-spotlight-info] "We ran an experiment in partnership with Audible, that investigated whether people respond differently to emotionally engaging scenes when they are delivered in video or audiobook format.” Continue Reading Matthew Hunt

Jonathan Tsay

Jonathan Tsay

[get-spotlight-info] "I work on how the brain controls movement. I use Gorilla to design a battery of cognitive tasks to investigate how the cerebellum contribute to cognition. These tasks span a wide range, from language to visual cognition, from math to attention.” Continue Reading Jonathan Tsay

Violet Brown

Violet Brown

[get-spotlight-info] “Perceptual and cognitive traits that are commonly used in individual differences studies appear to be unrelated to susceptibility to the McGurk effect.” Continue Reading Violet Brown