2016
DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000245
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Listeners lengthen phrase boundaries in self-paced music.

Abstract: 1Previous work has shown that musicians tend to slow down as they approach phrase boundaries 2 (phrase-final lengthening). In the present experiments, we used a paradigm from the action 3 perception literature, the dwell time paradigm (Hard, Recchia, & Tversky, 2011), to investigate 4 whether participants engage in phrase boundary lengthening when self-pacing through musical 5 sequences. When participants used a key press to produce each successive chord of Bach 6 chorales, they dwelled longer on boundary chor… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
22
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
3
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is consistent with previous findings showing that expressive timing typically involving a shortening of the short notes, and a lengthening of the long notes of a melody [49]. Second, both musicians and non-musicians had similarly shortened representations for the duration of the last note (♩ ♩ ♩ → ♩ ♩ ♩ ♪), a pattern is at odds with the note-final lengthening reported for non-musicians in a self-paced listening paradigm [51], but consistent with the lengthening of the last-but-one inter-onset-interval found in professional pianists [49, 56]. Finally, the analysis revealed a significant interaction of time index and participant musicianship: F(5, 40) = 2.5, p = .045.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This is consistent with previous findings showing that expressive timing typically involving a shortening of the short notes, and a lengthening of the long notes of a melody [49]. Second, both musicians and non-musicians had similarly shortened representations for the duration of the last note (♩ ♩ ♩ → ♩ ♩ ♩ ♪), a pattern is at odds with the note-final lengthening reported for non-musicians in a self-paced listening paradigm [51], but consistent with the lengthening of the last-but-one inter-onset-interval found in professional pianists [49, 56]. Finally, the analysis revealed a significant interaction of time index and participant musicianship: F(5, 40) = 2.5, p = .045.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…However, the cognitive structures that govern a participant’s representation of the rhythm of a given musical passage are difficult to uncover with experimental methods. In [50], it was accessed indirectly by measuring the ability to detect timing errors inserted at different positions in a phrase; in [51], participants were asked to manually advance through a sequence of musical chords with a key press, and the time dwelt on each successive chord was used to quantify how fast they internally represented the corresponding musical time. Here, we give a proof of concept of how to use CLEESE in a reverse-correlation experiment to uncover what temporal contour drives participants’ judgement of a rhythmically competent/accurate rendition of the well-known song Happy birthday .…”
Section: Case-study (2): Musical Rhythmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the present study, we used a simple self-pacing apparatus to examine the use of expressive cues in musical production across non-expert undergraduate performers with different levels of formal music training. A similar apparatus has been used in previous self-pacing studies to examine expressive timing and musical phrase structure in nonmusicians and preschool children (Kragness & Trainor, 2016, 2018). In previous studies, participants controlled the onset of each successive chord in a prescribed musical sequence.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…None of the participants were professional musicians (for more information about musical-training levels, see Table S1 in the Supplemental Material available online). This sample size exceeds or corresponds to those of previous studies using this methodology to assess comparable effects (e.g., Hard et al, 2011;Kragness & Trainor, 2016. All participants were fluent in English.…”
Section: Statement Of Relevancementioning
confidence: 83%
“…Participants were instructed to progress as quickly or slowly as they liked while listening carefully, and they could not repeat previously heard tones. To motivate them to attend to the task, we falsely led them to believe that their memory for the sequences would be tested afterward (Kragness & Trainor, 2016). No other instructions regarding timing, pacing, rhythmicity, or expressivity were given.…”
Section: Procedure the Experimental Procedures Received Prior Approval From The Mcmaster University Research Ethicsmentioning
confidence: 99%