Delayed auditory feedback and rhythmic tapping: Evidence for a critical interval shift

Finney, Steven A.; Warren, William H.

doi:10.3758/bf03196794

Cited by 29 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An apparent exception to the finding that disruption drops for delays forming 1.0 phase ratios was found by Finney and Warren (2002). In that study, participants tapped a rhythmically varying sequence in which a group of 4 isochronous taps was followed by a group of 2 taps, with pauses between groups being equal to two withingroup IOIs (cf.…”

Section: The Influence Of Simple Versus Complex Phase Ratiosmentioning

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Coordination of perception and action in music performance

Pfordresher¹

2006

Advances in Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONWhen performing musical sequences, people plan actions to produce acoustic events that communicate thoughts and emotions (for reviews see Gabrielsson, 1999;Jones & Holleran, 1992;Juslin & Sloboda, 2001;Palmer, 1997;Sloboda, 1982;1985;.Sequence production in contexts such as music and speech involves communicating a message through sound, a process that is probably guided by monitoring the perceived consequences of one's actions (Levelt, 1989;MacKay, 1987;Palmer & Drake, 1997). However, little research has addressed the role of self-perception in music performance. My research has explored this issue by examining the ways in which the maintenance of fluency during music performance depends on matches between actions and auditory feedback (the sounds one creates). Results suggest that higher-order representations of musical structure guide both the planning of actions and the perception of auditory feedback (cf. Hommel, Müsseler, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2001;MacKay, 1987;Müsseler, 1999;Prinz, 1997).The lack of research on the role of auditory feedback may result from its apparently obvious importance to music performance. How else could music be learned or communicated but through close monitoring of sound? Nevertheless, some evidence indicates that the importance of auditory feedback may be circumscribed.On the one hand, the presence of sound during learning facilitates recall during performance, even for skilled pianists (Finney & Palmer, 2003). On the other hand, learning to produce a sequence of key presses on a piano does not depend on the presence of sound, even for people without any musical training (Pfordresher, 2005, Experiment 3). Furthermore, the absence of sound during keyboard performance of a learned melody has negligible effects on trained performers (Finney, 1997;Finney & Palmer, 2003;Pfordresher, 2005;Repp, 1999;Repp & Knoblich, 2004) or untrained performers (Pfordresher, 2005). actions when auditory feedback is present, though they may not rely on the presence of feedback. Disruption from altered feedback therefore may result from miscoordination between perception and action. The present article reviews research on the disruptive effects of altered auditory feedback to music performance, focusing in particular on the effects by the author (for more extensive reviews on the role of auditory feedback see Finney, 1999;Smith, 1962;Yates, 1963; for reviews focused on speech with applications for stuttering see Howell, 2004aHowell, , 2004b. The focus of the research summarized here is on keyboard performance, which is the only domain of music performance that has been studied extensively with respect to altered auditory feedback. This review is organized into two main sections, the first summarizes recent results of different kinds of feedback alterations, and the second reflects on the theoretical implications of these results. EFFECTS OF ALTERED AUDITORY FEEDBACK (AAF)Research on the interplay between perception and action in music performance has relied mainly on the altered auditory f...

show abstract

Section: The Influence Of Simple Versus Complex Phase Ratiosmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Disruption increased as feedback onsets approached the time of the next action (cf. Finney & Warren, 2002), regardless of tempo. These findings were confirmed in research with phase shifts described earlier (Pfordresher, 2003a, Experiment 1).…”

Section: Feedback Timing and Maximal Disruptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coordination of perception and action in music performance

Pfordresher¹

2006

Advances in Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With a properly configured system, serious problems do not occur. For example, in a tapping experiment with a total of 1,320 thirty-second trials (Finney & Warren, 2000), only 50 trials (3.8%) showed a scheduling discrepancy of greater than 1 msec. These 50 trials each contained a single scheduling discrepancy of either 2 or 3 msec, and these small discrepancies typically occurred when no MIDI data were being processed.…”

Section: Real-time Diagnostics and Benchmarkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Synchronization/continuation tapping experiments, including isochronous tapping (Wing & Kristofferson, 1973) and patterned rhythms (Finney, 1999;Finney & Warren, 2000;Vorberg & Hambuch, 1984).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

FTAP: A Linux-based program for tapping and music experiments

Finney

2001

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As a concrete example of scheduling performance, Finney and Warren (2000) reported a synchronization/ continuation tapping experiment run with FTAP, using a 200-MHz Pentium computer and a Linux 2.2 kernel. Twenty subjects performed 66 trials each, giving a total of 1,320 trials.…”

Section: Scheduling Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%