Effects of delayed auditory feedback on timing of music performance

Abstract

Three experiments examined effects of delayed auditory feedback (DAF) on music performance as a function of the temporal location of feedback onsets within produced inter-onset intervals (IOIs). In Experiment 1, pianists performed isochronous melodies at two production rates with different amounts of DAF. Timing variability decreased for DAF amounts that caused feedback onsets to occur halfway through IOIs (binary subdivisions) in a 500-ms, but not 600-ms, IOI rate condition. In Experiment 2, pianists performed melodies with DAF delays and chose a preferred rate. Performers chose slower rates for larger delays; preferred rates approximated twice the amount of DAF. Experiment 3 tested the possibility that subjects deliberately conceptualized subdivisions in Experiments 1 and 2. Performers were given (1) no instructions, (2) instructions to mentally subdivide produced events in two, or (3) instructions to mentally subdivide produced events in three, in different blocks. Instructions to subdivide reduced timing variability for larger feedback delays. These experiments indicate that DAF disruption is reduced by subdividing instructions and sometimes by coincidences of feedback onsets with subdivisions of produced intervals. Such facilitation may reflect the use of hierarchical cognitive plans in production.

Coordination of perception and action in music performance

“…Pfordresher & Palmer (2002) found reduced timing variability in one of two tempo conditions, relative to the general increase with phase mentioned before. Furthermore, when allowed to choose their own tempo during fixed-delay feedback, participants tended to choose a tempo at which the delays occurred at .5 phase ratios (Experiment 2).…”

“…Earlier work supports this result. Pfordresher & Palmer (2002) found that the variability of produced timing (an index of timing disruption) increased with delay beyond the 200 ms interval shown to be maximally disruptive in other research (MacKay, 1987). Disruption increased as feedback onsets approached the time of the next action (cf.…”

“…Similar to effects on speech, DAF disrupts keyboard performance by increasing error rates (e.g., Finney, 1997), increasing inter-onset intervals (IOIs, e.g., Gates, Bradshaw & Nettleton, 1974;Havliceck, 1968;Finney, 1997), and increasing timing variability (Pfordresher, 2003a;Pfordresher & Palmer, 2002). Increases in each variable are evidence of "disruption" insofar as they signal a deviation from the intended performance, typically represented by performance with normal feedback.…”

Auditory feedback in music performance: Evidence for a dissociation of sequencing and timing.

“…Then participants performed at least two repetitions of that melody from memory in synchrony with the metronome, at the prescribed rate (500 ms between metronome onsets). Then participants performed it with a .66 feedback phase shift (similar to the absolute time delay found to be most disruptive by Pfordresher & Palmer, 2002) at a comfortable self-selected rate for another two repetitions to become accustomed to the experience of altered feedback. Following this familiarization with synchronization and altered auditory feedback, participants performed at least one practice trial using the .66 phase shift.…”

“…DAF causes disruption such as slowing of production rate (for music: Finney, 1997;Gates, Bradshaw, & Nettleton, 1974; for speech : Howell, 1983;Howell & Archer, 1984;Howell & Powell, 1987;Howell, Powell, & Khan, 1983; for tapping: R. A. Chase, Harvey, Standfast, Rapin, & Sutton, 1961), increased errors (for music: Finney, 1997; for speech : Fairbanks & Guttman, 1958;MacKay, 1968MacKay, , 1970Robinson, 1972; for tapping : Finney & Warren, 2002), and increased timing variability (for music: Pfordresher & Palmer, 2002). However, Finney (1997) found that randomization of feedback pitches did not disrupt piano performance, in contrast to significant disruption from DAF.…”