The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance
description
Transcript of The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance
![Page 1: The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/5681571b550346895dc4b9fd/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Cognitive Bases of Music PerformancePeter Q. PfordresherDepartment of Psychology
Auditory Perception and Action Lab
![Page 2: The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/5681571b550346895dc4b9fd/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Overview
Memory and planning Timing in performance Feedback in performance Musical deficits: The case of “bad”
singing
![Page 3: The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/5681571b550346895dc4b9fd/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Memory and Planning
Errors and “what’s on your mind?”Freud’s best contribution!Lashley (1951): Errors suggest
hierarchical, not serial, organization
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
![Page 4: The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/5681571b550346895dc4b9fd/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Memory and planning
Serial ordering errorsTarget vs. intruder
Target/intruder relationshipsDistanceDirection
• Anticipation• Perseveration• Exchange
Examples
“But barkling water is bad for you” (intended: sparkling)Vousden et al., 2000
PerformedPerformed
IntendedIntended
![Page 5: The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/5681571b550346895dc4b9fd/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Memory and Planning
Errors constrained by structureRemain within a melodic line (Plamer & van
De Sande, 1993; Palmer, 1996)
Stay within a musical phrase (P&vDs, 1995)
Directional characteristics of planningAnticipations = thinking aheadMore anticipations = fewer errors (e.g.,
Drake & Palmer, 2000; Dell et al., 1997)
Faster tempo = fewer anticipations (Drake & Palmer, 2000; but not Palmer & Pfordresher, 2003)
![Page 6: The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/5681571b550346895dc4b9fd/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Memory and Planning Planning and distance
Greater distance for adultsGreater distance for slower tempi
The range model (Palmer & Pfordresher, 2003;
Pfordresher et al., 2006). Distance results fromSerial proximity Metrical similarity
(Serial proximity) (Metrical similarity)
![Page 7: The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/5681571b550346895dc4b9fd/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
The range model
Even
t A
cti
vati
on
Level 2 X X X X X XLevel 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X
Current (planned) eventMetrical Grid
Serial = “tapering off” from currentMetrical = “up/down” pattern
Y = S M 1m m
m mx,i x x i
xta
,
i i x
i i x
![Page 8: The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/5681571b550346895dc4b9fd/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Timing Maintaining regularity: Two sources of
variability (Wing & Kristofferson, 1973):
Expressive timingPresent even in “deadpan” performances
(Palmer, 1989)Associated with structure (Todd, 1985)
Association with movement? (Sundberg & Verillo, 1999)
Relational invariance? (e.g., Repp, 1998) Problems:Ornaments (Desain & Honig, 1994)
“Swing ratios”
![Page 9: The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/5681571b550346895dc4b9fd/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Perceptual feedback Focus mostly on auditory
Altered auditory feedback What is necessary?
Presence of feedback?• Facilitates memory, but not necessary• Absence doesn’t disrupt piano (Repp, 1999)
• Though more important for singing
Timing of feedback? IMPORTANT• Disruption varies with delay amount• Probably function of rhythm
![Page 10: The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/5681571b550346895dc4b9fd/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Delayed auditory feedback
% IO
I diff
ere
nce
Absolute time:Gates et al. (1974)
Delay as % of IOI
-20
0
20
40
60
80
0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
IRI D
iffe
ren
ce +/- 1 SE
Relative time:Pfordresher & Benitez (2007)
![Page 11: The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/5681571b550346895dc4b9fd/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Perceptual feedback
Feedback contents? More complexRandom pitch sequences: no
disruption (Finney, 1997)
Serial shifts do disrupt (Pfordresher, 2005)
• Even when shift is a “variation” (Pfordresher, in press)
What is the role of feedback?NOT “feedback”!!!Rather, perception and action share a
common “plan” (Pfordresher, 2006)
![Page 12: The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/5681571b550346895dc4b9fd/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
A framework for auditory feedback (Pfordresher, 2006)
![Page 13: The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/5681571b550346895dc4b9fd/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Musical deficits:“Bad” singing
Nature of the deficitMistuned notes
• May be influenced by vocal range
Compress pitch intervals NOT: contour errorsSing faster than they should (Dalla Bella et al., 2007)
![Page 14: The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/5681571b550346895dc4b9fd/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
“Bad” singing
What causes bad singing? Still a question…Tone deafness (literally)?
• Congenital Amusia (Peretz et al., 2002)
• BUT: evidence that bad singers are good listeners (Bradshaw & McHenry, 200; Dalla Bella et al., 2007; Pfordresher & Brown, 2007)
Motor control? Not likely either… How prevalent is bad singing?
Probably ~10% of populationTwice as prevalent as true “tone deafness”
![Page 15: The Cognitive Bases of Music Performance](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/5681571b550346895dc4b9fd/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Thank YouStudents who helped:
Ohio state Danielle Brink Grant Baldwin
UB Ece Yildirim Jennifer Walsh Jenny O’Sullivan
UTSA Brian Benitez (MS, 2005) Erik M. Gallemore (MS, 2005) Julliann Canady Augusto Petacchi Danielle Maddock Zachary Clay
Funding sources:
National Science Foundation BCS-0344892 BCS-0624592 BCS-0704516San Antonio Life Sciences Institute Grant #121075UTSA Faculty Research Award, 2003The Grammy Foundation
And to many, many participants…