Cognitive-emotional response to music as a function of music and cognitive complexity.

Abstract

One hundred twenty-two undergraduate students were given the Conceptual Systems Test (CS Test) to determine level of cognitive complexity or style. The 30 most complex (abstract) and 30 least complex (Concrete) subjects were retained for the main study. These subjects listened to six music segments presented in a random se quential fashion, to determine how abstract and concrete thinkers differ on a number of dependent measures. Results showed no differences between these two groups when either a free association or emotionality measure was used. However, the two groups did significantly differ on absolute preference scores. In addition, the closer the music being played was to the student's most preferred piece of music, the more that person liked the piece being played. The theoretical implications of Harvey, Hunt andSchroder (1961), andSchroder, Driver andStreufert (1967), were discussed along with the study's research implications.

Repeated Listening Increases the Liking for Music Regardless of Its Complexity: Implications for the Appreciation and Aesthetics of Music

“…It is not understood how the perception of a piece of music is construed by the brain, and how it could be modeled by a formal mathematical measure of complexity. Several studies have nevertheless attempted objective evaluations of complexity, by using information-theory based indices to synthesize varyingly complex MEs (Vitz, 1966 ; Heyduk, 1975 ) or attributing perceived complexity to quantifiable properties ad-hoc (Conley, 1981 ; Hargreaves, 1984 ; Rohner, 1985 ). One way to apply formal measures of complexity would be an experimental situation in which complexity could be independently and exclusively manipulated.…”

“…This level of control, however, requires highly constrained sound sequences, and synthetic examples typically have low ecological validity (Heyduk, 1975 ; Steck and Machotka, 1975 ; Arkes et al, 1986 ; Hargreaves and Castell, 1987 ; Szpunar et al, 2004 ). Another approach would be to separate listeners into groups based on their cognitive processing abilities while keeping the musical complexity constant, but results from such studies have not indicated any preference among those with more advanced abstract thinking for more complex music during either focused listening or listening during a cognitive demanding task (Rohner, 1985 ; Arkes et al, 1986 ).…”

Melodic Contour Similarity Using Folk Melodies

“…As discussed by Schmuckler (1999), musical, or in this case melodic, complexity is, in and of itself, a psychologically intricate concept-one that has been a topic of a great deal of research in its own right (Arkes, Rettig, & Scougale, 1986;Conley, 1981;Eerola et al, 2006;Konečni, 1982;Rohner, 1985;Williams, 2004). Accordingly, the divergence between these sets of ratings might highlight those factors that are intrinsic to the notion of melodic complexity, but have little to do with contour structure per se.…”

Effect of Music Complexity on Nonmusicians' Focus of Attention to Melody or Harmony

“…the various musical layers, and the timbre(s) of the sounds produced. For instance, younger students' focus of attention seems to be affected by register and timbre, but auditory identification and music stimuli grouping behaviors seem to develop over time as patterns emerge (Gudmundsdottir, 1999;Lerdahl & Jackendoff, 1983;Rohner, 1985, Wolpert, 1990. A review of recent literature suggests that perception of complexity is an individual attribute that may be affected by music training (Williams, 2005).…”