Timing relationships between actions and sound in music performance - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
timing relationships between actions and sound in music
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Timing relationships between actions and sound in music performance - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 30, 2023 44 likes •270 views

Timing relationships between actions and sound in music performance Peter Q. Pfordresher & Brian Benitez Department of Psychology and Institute for Music Research The University of Texas at San Antonio Supported in part by NSF Grant

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Timing relationships between actions and sound in music performance

Supported in part by NSF Grant BCS-0344892

Peter Q. Pfordresher & Brian Benitez Department of Psychology and Institute for Music Research The University of Texas at San Antonio

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Background

  • Altered auditory feedback paradigm

– Disruption from Delayed Auditory Feedback (DAF, Black, 1951; Lee, 1950)

  • What does DAF disruption mean about

temporal coordination between timing of actions and feedback?

– Absolute time hypothesis (e.g., MacKay, 1987) – Relative time hypothesis (e.g., Finney & Warren, 2003;

Howell et al., 1983; Pfordresher & Palmer, 2002)

  • Limitation: Delay lengths fixed
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Fixed delays and phase

IOI #1 500ms (IOI #1) (IOI #1) (IOI #1) (IOI #1) 500ms 600ms 700ms 800ms 900ms

50% 42% 36% 31% 28%

Phase relationship Onsets

250ms 250ms 250ms 250ms 250ms

Delays IOIs

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Adjustable delays and absolute time

IOI #1 500ms (IOI #1) (IOI #1) (IOI #1) (IOI #1) 500ms 600ms 700ms 800ms 900ms

250ms 300ms 350ms 400ms 450ms

Absolute time Onsets

50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Delays IOIs

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Predictions

  • Relative time hypothesis

– Advantage for delays that crate onset synchrony (100% , 200%), possibly also 50% (alternation) – Tempo x delay interaction for fixed delays, but not for adjustable delays

  • Absolute time hypothesis

– Disruption maximal for ~ 200ms delay (270 ms according to Gates et al., 1974).

  • Presume range from 200 – 300ms
  • Disruption may asymptote (e.g., Howell et al., 1983) or

decrease (e.g., Fairbanks & Guttman, 1954) after critical interval

– Tempo x delay interaction for adjustable, not fixed

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Experiment 1 Method

  • Participants = 12 non-pianists
  • Synchronization/Continuation paradigm
  • Movement type / task complexity

– Tap: Isochronous tapping – Sequence: Perform melody on keyboard (simplified)

1 2 3 5 4 3 2 3

1 2 3 4 5

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Experiment 1 Method (continued)

  • Delay type (in addition to normal control)

– Fixed: 330ms, 500ms, 660ms – Adjustable: 66%, 100%, 132%

  • Tempo (IOI): 330ms, 500ms, 660ms

1 0.76 0.5 660 1.32 1 0.66 500 2 1.52 1 330 660 500 330 fixed delay values tempo 792 660 435.6 660 600 500 330 500 396 330 217.8 330 1.2 1 0.66 adjustable delay values tempo

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Data Analysis

  • Disruption = Mean IOI (Continuation) – Mean

IOI (synchronization)

– Removed errors (< 5%) and events following errors – Removed outliers (+/- 3 SD) and any < 100 or > 1000

  • Synchronization performance (+/- 1 SD):

Tapping Trials

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 300 400 500 600 700 Metronm e IOI Produced IOI produced ideal

Sequencing Trials

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 300 400 500 600 700 Metronm e IOI Produced IOI produced ideal

Error bars = +/- 1 SD

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Results: Sequencing Trials

Fixed Delays

  • 50

50 100 150

330 500 660

Proscribed IOI (ms)

Diff MN IOI

330 500 660

Delay (ms)

Arrows = Integer phase (predict low) Arrows = 200-300 ms (predict high)

Adjustable Delays

  • 50

50 100 150

330 500 660

Proscribed IOI (ms) Diff MN IOI

66% 100% 132% Delay (% IOI)

Error bars = +/- 1 SE

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Results: Sequencing Trials

Delays on different continua

Fixed Delays

  • 50

50 100 200 400 600 800 Plotted as length Diff MN IOI

Fixed Delays

  • 50

50 100 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%

Plotted as phase

Diff MN IOI

Adjustable Delays

  • 60
  • 40
  • 20

20 40 60 200 400 600 800 1000

Plotted as length Diff MN IOI

Adjustable Delays

  • 60
  • 40
  • 20

20 40 60 0% 50% 100% 150%

Plotted as phase

Diff MN IOI

660 ms 500 ms 330 ms

Tempo (IOI)

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Results: Tapping Trials

Fixed Delays

  • 50

50 100 150 330 500 660 Proscribed IOI (ms)

Diff MN IOI

330 500 660

Delay (ms)

Arrows = Integer phase (predict low) Arrows = 200-300 ms (predict high)

Adjustable Delays

  • 50

50 100 150

330 500 660

Proscribed IOI (ms) Diff MN IOI

66% 100% 132% Delay (% IOI)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Results: Tapping Trials

Delays on different continua

Fixed Delays

  • 20

20 40 60 80 200 400 600 800 Plotted as length Diff MN IOI

Fixed Delays

  • 20

20 40 60 80 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%

Plotted as phase

Diff MN IOI

Adjustable Delays

  • 40
  • 20

20 40 60 200 400 600 800 1000 Plotted as length Diff MN IOI

Adjustable Delays

  • 40
  • 20

20 40 60 0% 50% 100% 150% Plotted as phase Diff MN IOI

660 ms 500 ms 330 ms

Tempo (IOI)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Experiment 2: Short delays

  • Experiment 1 not ideally suited to test for

“peak” around delays of 200ms.

  • Phase shifts at 50% may show facilitation

(Pfordresher & Palmer, 2002)

  • Changed delay amounts

– Fixed: 165ms, 250ms, 330ms – Adjustable: 33%, 50%, 66%

0.5 0.38 0.25 660 0.66 0.5 0.33 500 1 0.76 0.5 330 330 250 165 fixed delay values tempo 435.6 330 217.8 660 330 250 165 500 217.8 165 108.9 330 0.66 0.5 0.33 adjustable delay values tempo

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Method (continued)

  • 12 Additional non-pianists
  • Same data analysis

– Performance on synchronization (+/- 1SD):

Tapping Trials

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 300 400 500 600 700 Metronm e IOI Produced IOI produced ideal

Sequencing Trials

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 300 400 500 600 700 Metronm e IOI Produced IOI produced ideal

Error bars = +/- 1 SD

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Results: Sequence

Fixed Delays

  • 50

50 100 150 330 500 660

Proscribed IOI (ms) Diff MN IOI

165 250 330

Delay (ms)

Arrows = Integer phase (predict low) Arrows = 200-300 ms (predict high)

Adjustable Delays

  • 50

50 100 150 330 500 660

Proscribed IOI (ms) Diff MN IOI

33% 50% 66% Delay (% IOI)

Error bars = +/- 1 SE

50% 100% 50% 50%

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Results: Sequence

Delays on different continua

Fixed Delays

  • 20

20 40 60 80 100 100 200 300 400 Plotted as length Diff MN IOI

Fixed Delays

  • 20

20 40 60 80 100 0% 50% 100% 150%

Plotted as phase

Diff Mn IOI

Adjustable Delays

20 40 60 80 100 200 300 400 500 Plotted as length Mn IOI

Adjustable Delays

20 40 60 80 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Plotted as phase

Mn IOI

660 ms 500 ms 330 ms

Tempo (IOI)

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Results: Tapping Trials

Fixed Delays

  • 50

50 100 150 m330 m500 m660

Proscribed IOI (ms) Diff MN IOI

165 250 330

Delay (ms)

Arrows = Integer phase (predict low) Arrows = 200-300 ms (predict high)

Adjustable Delays

  • 50

50 100 150 m330 m500 m660

Proscribed IOI (ms) Diff MN IOI

33% 50% 66% Delay (% IOI)

50% 100% 50% 50%

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Results: Tapping Trials

Delays on different continua

Fixed Delays

  • 20

20 40 60 100 200 300 400 Plotted as length Diff MN IOI

Fixed Delays

  • 20

20 40 60 0% 50% 100% 150%

Plotted as phase Diff MN IOI

Adjustable Delays

20 40 60 80 100 200 300 400 500

Plotted as length

Diff MN IOI

Adjustable Delays

20 40 60 80 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Plotted as phase Diff MN IOI

660 ms 500 ms 330 ms

Tempo (IOI)

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Both Experiments: Phase

  • 20
  • 10

10 20 30 40 50 60 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%

Plotted as phase Mn Diff IOI

Fixed Adjustable

10 20 30 40 50 60 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%

Plotted as phase MN Diff IOI

  • 20

20 40 60 80 100 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%

Plotted as phase Mn Diff IOI Sequence Tap

slide-20
SLIDE 20
  • 10

10 20 30 40 50 60 200 400 600 800 1000

Plotted as length Mn Diff IOI Sequence Tap

  • 20
  • 10

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 200 400 600 800 1000 Plotted as length

Mn Diff IOI Fixed Adjustable

10 20 30 40 50 200 400 600 800 1000 Plotted as length

MN Diff IOI

Both Experiments: Length

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Conclusions

  • Evidence for an advantage of simple phase

ratios (but not .5), regardless of delay type or movement type

– Maximal disruption around θ = .50 - .75, depending on movement type

  • Weaker effects of absolute time may also

contribute

– Global influence across tempo conditions, not evident within each tempo condition – More apparent for adjustable delays, sequencing

slide-22
SLIDE 22

And now, a shameless plug…

Auditory Perception, Cognition, and Action Meeting (APCAM)

Submission Deadline: August 26, 2005

Thursday November 10, 2005, Toronto

(Before Psychonomics)

Keynote Speaker: Professor Dylan Jones, Cardiff University

More information at: www.apcam.us mcauley@bgnet.bgsu.edu