How modality specific is processing of auditory and visual rhythms?

Pasinski, Amanda C.; McAuley, J. Devin; Snyder, Joel S.

doi:10.1111/psyp.12559

Cited by 22 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research on temporal perception faces the paradox that vision has enough resolution to detect fast events but underperforms audition in generating a sense of beat. It seems possible to extract a beat from visually perceived stimuli (Grahn, 2012; Su, 2014), but it is known, for instance, that temporal expectancy is increased in the auditory modality (Pasinski et al, 2016), and that visual beat perception relies on auditory recoding while the reverse is not true (Grahn et al, 2011). Despite the vast literature on modality differences in temporal perception, the advantages of moving over static visual stimuli have been less explored in perception than in synchronization.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving Stimuli Facilitate Synchronization But Not Temporal Perception

Silva

Castro

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies have shown that a moving visual stimulus (e.g., a bouncing ball) facilitates synchronization compared to a static stimulus (e.g., a flashing light), and that it can even be as effective as an auditory beep. We asked a group of participants to perform different tasks with four stimulus types: beeps, siren-like sounds, visual flashes (static) and bouncing balls. First, participants performed synchronization with isochronous sequences (stimulus-guided synchronization), followed by a continuation phase in which the stimulus was internally generated (imagery-guided synchronization). Then they performed a perception task, in which they judged whether the final part of a temporal sequence was compatible with the previous beat structure (stimulus-guided perception). Similar to synchronization, an imagery-guided variant was added, in which sequences contained a gap in between (imagery-guided perception). Balls outperformed flashes and matched beeps (powerful ball effect) in stimulus-guided synchronization but not in perception (stimulus- or imagery-guided). In imagery-guided synchronization, performance accuracy decreased for beeps and balls, but not for flashes and sirens. Our findings suggest that the advantages of moving visual stimuli over static ones are grounded in action rather than perception, and they support the hypothesis that the sensorimotor coupling mechanisms for auditory (beeps) and moving visual stimuli (bouncing balls) overlap.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving Stimuli Facilitate Synchronization But Not Temporal Perception

Silva

Castro

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This could be because there is no auditory advantage for measure-level perception in general, or it could be because pseudo-random assignment to condition cannot eliminate group-level differences that could be obscuring small, but real, modality effects. Across individuals, people vary widely in their sensitivity to beat (Grahn & Schuit, 2012), but within an individual, beat perception ability is highly correlated across auditory and visual modalities (Grahn, 2012;Grahn et al, 2011;McAuley & Henry, 2010;Pasinski et al, 2016). It would be advantageous to compare performance across modalities within the same individuals, which is more statistically powerful, to more conclusively test for an auditory advantages for beat or measure perception.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, both the better temporal precision of the visual system and the greater tolerance for visual (metronomes) leading auditory (musical beat) information could have contributed to the auditory advantage for beat perception we observed in children and adults. It is unlikely that the auditory advantage arises from modality-specific beat perception mechanisms, however: beat perception in visual and auditory tasks is associated with highly similar and overlapping patterns of neural activation (Grahn et al, 2011;Marchant & Driver, 2013;Pasinski et al, 2016;Schubotz et al, 2000). This could arise from a shared mechanism for beat perception in non-sensory areas of the brain, or by visual rhythms being "recoded" as auditory rhythms in the auditory cortex (e.g., Guttman, Gilroy, & Blake, 2005;McAuley & Henry, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory Superiority for Perceiving the Beat Level but not the Measure Level in Music

Nave-Blodgett¹,

Snyder²,

Hannon³

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auditory perception of time is superior to visual perception, both for simple intervals and beat-based musical rhythms. To what extent does this auditory advantage characterize perception of different hierarchical levels of musical meter, and how is it related to lifelong experience with music? We paired musical excerpts with auditory and visual metronomes that matched or mismatched the musical meter at the beat (faster) and measure (slower) levels and obtained fit ratings from adults and children (5-10 years). Adults exhibited an auditory advantage in this task for the beat level, but not for the measure level. Children also displayed an auditory advantage for the beat level, their sensitivity to beat in both modalities increased with age, and they were not sensitive to measure-level matching in either modality. More musical training was related to enhanced sensitivity in both auditory and visual modalities for measure-level matching in adults and beat-level matching in children. These findings provide evidence for auditory superiority of beat perception across development, and they suggest that beat and meter perception develop quite gradually and rely on lifelong acquisition of musical knowledge.

show abstract

“…Rhythm perception has been associated in a theorical and practical way with auditory modes. Rhythm is not processed in a single sense modality, but rather through the different senses, including visual modality (amodal stimulus) (Grahn, 2012b;Levitin et al, 2018;Pasinski, McAuley, & Snyder, 2016).…”

Section: Visual Rhythmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rhythm pattern discrimination by primary school students

Durá

Giménez

2020

Research Studies in Music Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ascertaining the most effective modes of presenting rhythmic information to students is extremely important in order to facilitate rhythm training. This study examines the effects of different bimodal presentations of rhythmic information on the discrimination of rhythm patterns by primary school students. A 2 × 2 factorial design was conducted with two variables – audiovisual and audio-textual – each using two levels (static and dynamic). Four experimental conditions were designed: (1) static audiovisual, (2) dynamic audiovisual, (3) static audio-textual and (4) dynamic audio-textual. Data were collected by administering a rhythmic discrimination test to intact classes in second grade ( N = 83; 40 boys and 43 girls; 7–8 years old; medium socio-economic level) at two public primary schools from Comunitat Valenciana, Spain. Fourteen rhythmic patterns were presented to each group in each condition. Each pattern was played three consecutive times. The test consisted of comparing the third presentation of each pattern to the first two presentations – thereby exposing the sample pattern – and deciding whether the third was the same or not. The following covariates were measured: age, previous rhythmic skills, musicians in the family environment, out-of-school music studies and grades earned in music school classes during the previous year. The test scores show significant statistical differences between dynamic audiovisual and static audio-textual ( g = 1.25), as well as between dynamic audio-textual and static audio-textual ( g = .90). Furthermore, the audiovisual presentation mode was superior to its audio-textual counterpart ( g = .46) and the findings showed that the dynamic presentations were more effective than the static ones ( g = .69). The implications for teaching and learning rhythm are discussed.

show abstract

How modality specific is processing of auditory and visual rhythms?

Cited by 22 publications

References 61 publications

Moving Stimuli Facilitate Synchronization But Not Temporal Perception

Moving Stimuli Facilitate Synchronization But Not Temporal Perception

Auditory Superiority for Perceiving the Beat Level but not the Measure Level in Music

Rhythm pattern discrimination by primary school students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About