Synchronization

In this study, one of the target behaviors was synchronization, which is actually termed ‘synchrony’ in the literature and as a construct, has been measured in many different ways. Although all definitions involve some notion of behavior adjustment

16 For further elaboration on turn-organization in an early mother-infant interaction, adult conversation and with children with communicative disorders, see Holck, 2004.

or entrainment to another, they can be classified into three broad categories (Bernieri, Reznick, & Rosenthal, 1988, pp. 243-244):

1. Biological rhythms, meaning that human behavior is understood to occur rhythmically and can be described in terms of cycles, periods, frequencies, and amplitudes. According to one approach in this direction, behavioral synchrony is defined as the degree of congruence between the behavioral cycles of two or more people. Much of the developmental literature involving adult-infant synchrony is of this type (see p. 244 for reviews).

2. Simultaneous behavior, meaning that synchrony occurs when one person directly imitates or mirrors another person's movements or body configuration. A broader definition includes simultaneous affect and attitudes as well as simultaneous movement changes.

3. Perceived synchrony, meaning that the apparent unification of two behavioral elements into a meaningfully described synchronous event, creates a whole, perceptual unit.

Fogel (1993) presented the term interactional synchrony which has various definitions and usages. According to some authors cited by Fogel (see p. 13), this term refers to an exact and precise temporal simultaneity of the beginnings and endings of actions between partners. During mother-infant interaction, the mother can often predict where the infant will look next, according to her previous communicative interactions with the infant as well as behavioral cues. Based on this anticipation, she can synchronize her behavior with that of the infant’s by either naming the object to which the infant looks, talking about it or gesturing toward it.

Frame-by-frame video analysis showed that there is an average lag of about 0.05 seconds between the mother’s and the infant’s behavior meaning that their actions are not precisely simultaneous. Fogel states that defining interactional synchrony as anticipation suggests explanation of socially co-ordinated activity that is based on a cognitive process of anticipation inherent in one or the other individual. This makes interactional synchrony a unilateral action and not a process of mutuality or co-regulation¹⁷ as Fogel thinks it should be. To Fogel’s view, a crucial defining aspect of interactional synchrony is the fact that actions are in the continuous process of

17 “Co-regulation is a social process by which individuals dynamically alter their actions with respect to the ongoing and anticipated actions of their partners” (Fogel, 1993, p. 12).

creation vis-à-vis the partner, i.e., synchrony is by definition, mutually dependent on both interactants within an interaction; it is dyadic in nature although parent-child interactions maybe guided largely by parents (see also Bernieri et al., 1988; Criss, Shaw, & Inglodsby, 2003). Tronick, Heidelise, and Brazelton (1977) refer to the smooth synchronous flow of the mother-infant correlations and conclude that the infants are able to communicate intent and to respond to the intent expressed by the mother. They also note that although synchrony may be a way for a child to communicate continue, dissynchrony may communicate stop. Criss et al. (2003) write that synchrony has been defined in the literature as the degree to which the parent–

child dyad displays responsiveness, reciprocity, engagement, mutual focus, and shared affect during interactions. Beebe (1982), Papousek (1996), Stern (1977) and Trevarthen (1993), all refer to synchrony as the matching of micro-level affective behavior between parent and child, which has long been suggested as an important mechanism underlying socio-affective development. Feldman and Grinbaum (1997) showed that mother–infant synchrony predicted symbolic play at two years of age above and beyond global assessments of the relationship in terms of sensitivity or responsiveness. Synchrony relates to the development of self-regulation, attachment security, and empathy (Jaffe et al., 2001). Tarabulsy, Tessier, and Kappas (1996) assume that the experience of synchrony may integrate biological rhythms into the rhythms of social dialogues.

Asendorpf (2002) relates to the relation between early imitation and self awareness and states that during the second year of life children become increasingly able to communicate with other peers through synchronic imitation. They play simultaneously with the same type of objects in a similar, though not always identical, way. They regularly and continuously look at their partner (looking at the partner’s objects is not sufficient), and seem to realize and enjoy the reciprocity inherent in their joint play. They often begin and end the object use at the same time or shift to a different activity almost synchronically. This synchronic imitation quickly becomes the most important preverbal form of communication among peers. Synchronic communication is different from ritualized forms of dyadic play such as peek-a-boo that appear much earlier in infant-adult communication. The latter requires only the acquisition of simple stimulus-response rules, such as turn alternation. What appears to emerge the second year is the more advanced ability to coordinate one’s behavior with the non-ritualized behavior of an adult or a peer. According to Asendorpf, the

capacity for synchronic imitation requires several specific abilities that develop earlier:

1. Children must be able to look where adults are looking (joint attention). First forms of joint attention emerge around nine months of age.

2. Children must be able to imitate the unfamiliar activity of a stranger (between nine to fourteen months of age).

3. Children must be able to recognize the contingency between their own behavior and that of their partner.

4. Children can distinguish between accidental and intentional actions by others.

(between fourteen to eighteen months of age). Asendorpf emphasizes that the

“Thou feeling”¹⁸ during synchronic communication, which is based on an understanding that I share the intentions of my interaction partner, may be more difficult than merely recognizing that others have intentions of their own.

Bernieri et al. (1988) write that synchrony can serve many possible functions, e.g., infants synchronize to adult speech but do not synchronize with non-speech-related sounds such as tapping, street noise, and white noise. An absence of synchrony has also been observed in people who have dyslexia and other learning disabilities, meaning that synchrony may be an essential precursor to language development. A state of high synchrony may note existing states or motivation for sociability among the interactants. In addition, it might even serve a communicative function in and of itself, signifying interest or approval (see reviews on p. 252). The authors add that synchrony for young children may be a means by which they regulate their involvement in social interactions. In a series of studies by Mize and Pettit (as cited in Criss, Shaw, & Ingoldsby, 2003), mother–child synchrony was observed in a laboratory setting, using a sample of families with preschool-age children. The findings indicated that synchrony was related significantly to lower levels of child aggression and higher levels of child social skills and peer acceptance.

There has been ongoing research on the interaction between a hearing parent and a child with HI (see section 2.2.3) but only minimal research which related specifically to synchrony in Hd dyad, was found by the researcher. Tucker, Hostler,

18 The feeling of “Thou”: “The intuitive understanding that I share common intentions or plans for actions with my interaction partner “ (Buber, as cited in Asendorpf, 2002, p.64).

and Nolan (1984) write that there are more vocal clashes in Hd dyads than in Hh dyads (mothers with normal hearing and children with normal hearing). They note that vocal clashes are a measure of interactional synchrony, meaning that synchrony is problematic in such dyads.

In music therapy, Bruscia (1987) defines the technique of mirroring as synchronizing- “doing what the client is doing at the same time” (p. 535). He describes synchronizing as one of the empathic techniques used in improvisational music therapy to support, stabilize, or strengthen the client’s response, to promote self awareness, to create more intimacy in the client-therapist relationship, to offer leadership opportunities, and to convey acceptance and identification. He states that synchronizing can be accomplished on various levels of precision, from trying to match many aspects of the client’s response to matching only certain dimensions.

Bruscia notes that the therapist may stay within the same modality of expression (unimodal) or transfer to another (crossmodal). Unimodal synchrony occurs “when the therapist matches the rhythms, melodies, and/or lyrics of the client and stays in unison with the client as they are being produced” (p. 538). It can also be implemented in other modalities such as movement, mime and play. In crossmodal synchrony, “the therapist temporarily matches the client’s action in a different modality, or perform a completely different act in temporal unison” (p. 539).

According to Bruscia, synchronizing involves imitating the client’s actions simultaneously rather than successively. He emphasizes that although this technique calls for going beyond the client's observable acts, it does not necessarily involve reflecting the client's feelings or matching the client's energy level.

Wigram (2004) uses the term ‘matching’ for synchronizing. He gives an inclusive definition of matching as follows:

Improvising music that is compatible, matches or fits in with the client’s style of playing while maintaining the same tempo, dynamics, texture, quality and complexity of other musical elements. To achieve a ‘match’ in musical terms means that the therapist’s music is not identical to the client’s but is the same in style and quality. Therefore the client experiences that the therapist’s music ‘fits together and matches’ his or her own production. (p. 84).

Wigram regards matching as an empathic method which confirms and validates

the clients’ playing and their emotional expression. To his view, matching is one of the most valuable of all the improvisational methods that can be applied in therapy, from which other therapeutic strategies or methods emerge.

In paraverbal therapy developed by Heimlich (as cited in Bruscia, 1987), the music therapist uses music to accompany, reflect, stimulate and guide the client’s experiences. In addition, synchronizing is used as a basic technique that can be implemented by the therapist through either movement or music and is especially useful in the regressive, nurturing experiences. Boxill (1985) indicates synchronization in addition to mirroring, and imitation, as a technique used to reflect the client moods and feelings. Simpkins (as cited in Bruscia, 1987) uses synchrony during the “attend” phase in his model of “integrative improvisation therapy”, when the client may or may not offer a purposeful response or expression and then, different procedures and techniques are necessary to engage him/her.