2020
DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/ch7ds
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Abstract: 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)… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 127 publications
(200 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Beat perception can arise from auditory, visual, or somatosensory stimulation (Huang et al, 2012; Nave-Blodgett et al, 2021; Palmer & Krumhansl, 1990; Palmer & Peterson, 2016; Su, 2016b), suggesting that beat (and possibly meter) perception is not exclusive to the auditory modality. There is evidence that beat perception relies on either shared or partially overlapping auditory and visual processes (Grahn et al, 2011; Marchant & Driver, 2013; Schubotz et al, 2000).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Beat perception can arise from auditory, visual, or somatosensory stimulation (Huang et al, 2012; Nave-Blodgett et al, 2021; Palmer & Krumhansl, 1990; Palmer & Peterson, 2016; Su, 2016b), suggesting that beat (and possibly meter) perception is not exclusive to the auditory modality. There is evidence that beat perception relies on either shared or partially overlapping auditory and visual processes (Grahn et al, 2011; Marchant & Driver, 2013; Schubotz et al, 2000).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%