An improved model of tonality perception incorporating pitch salience and echoic memory.

Abstract

The tone profile method of key determinatio n (Krumhansl, 1990) predicts key and key changes in a range of western tonal styles. However, the tone profile method fails to account for certain important effects in tonality perception (Butler, 1989). A modified version of Krumhansl's method of key determina tion is described that takes into account (a) subsidiary pitches and pitch sa lience according to Terhardt, S toll, and Seewann (1982a, 1982b), and (b) the effect of sensory memory decay. Both modification s are shown to improve the correlationbe tween model predictions and experimental data gathered by Krumhansl and Kessler (1982) on the tonality of harmonic progressions . However, the new model described here fails to account for Brown 's (1988) experimental findings on the tonality of melodies. The results here are consistent with the view that both structural and functional factors play a role in the perception of tonality.

Perceptual Tests of an Algorithm for Musical Key-Finding.

“…Butler (1989), for instance, although not critiquing the key-finding algorithm explicitly (likely because Butler's comments preceded the publication of the key-finding algorithm in Krumhansl, 1990), has pointedly questioned whether tonal hierarchy information (on which the key-finding algorithm is based) is useful in key-finding in general and in tracking modulation in particular: The key profile "does not describe how we hear moment-to-moment harmonic successions within a key; indeed, the theory offers no precise description of how we initially identify the key itself, or recognize key modulations" (Butler, 1989, p. 224). Other authors, such as Huron and Parncutt (1993) and Temperley (1999), have expressed similar, albeit more muted, reservations concerning the algorithm's ability to track key modulation. Temperley (1999), for instance, suggests that the algorithm is limited in that it only produces a single key judgment for a passage (as opposed to being sensitive to multiple key influences) and that it is insensitive to factors such as inertia in key movement (e.g., a tendency to remain in an already established key).…”

“…Although a thorough review of this work would require a study in and of itself (see Krumhansl, 2000a;Toiviainen & Krumhansl, 2003, for such reviews), currently, one of the most influential approaches to key-finding focuses on variation in the pitch content of a passage (e.g., Huron & Parncutt, 1993;Krumhansl & Schmuckler, 1986;Longuet-Higgins & Steedman, 1971;Parncutt, 1989;Shmulevich & Yli-Harja, 2000;Vos & Van Geenan, 1996). Perhaps the best known of such models is the key-finding algorithm of Schmuckler (1986, described in Krumhansl, 1990).…”

“…1994; Browne, 1981;Butler, 1989Butler, , 1990, and psychological (Huron & Parncutt, 1993;Krumhansl, 1990Krumhansl, , 2000bKrumhansl & Schmuckler, 1986;Krumhansl & Toiviainen, 2000Longuet-Higgins & Steedman, 1971;Toiviainen & Krumhansl, 2003) perspectives. Although a thorough review of this work would require a study in and of itself (see Krumhansl, 2000a;Toiviainen & Krumhansl, 2003, for such reviews), currently, one of the most influential approaches to key-finding focuses on variation in the pitch content of a passage (e.g., Huron & Parncutt, 1993;Krumhansl & Schmuckler, 1986;Longuet-Higgins & Steedman, 1971;Parncutt, 1989;Shmulevich & Yli-Harja, 2000;Vos & Van Geenan, 1996).…”

A Perceptual Study of Scale-degree Qualia in Context

“…While the K&K key profiles remain widely in use (e.g., Aarden, 2003;Bigand, 1997;Butler, 1989;Huron & Parncutt, 1993;Pauws, 2004;Takeuchi, 1994;Temperley, 2004Temperley, , 2007Sapp, 2005), the remainder of their 1982 paper actually detail additional, and more complex, experiments that attempt to demonstrate perceived key distances, as well as show converging evidence for their tonal stability theory. In these later experiments, the authors in fact do use a multitude of progressions; the majority of which do not end on tonic.…”

Toward a Unified Theory of the I-R Model (Part 1)

“…1-3) create melodic scalestep reversal structures, namely, two ss(RÀ)s (see the analysis above the third staff in Figure 10). That is, on a higher level the salient structural-tone G reverses motion left to the putative tonic C , and it does so twice (pitch salience being a tonal cue; see Huron & Parncutt, 1993). In addition, closural reversals and different melodic reversals (R0s) below the staff make the repeated tritones structural.…”