Expectancy in melody: Tests of children and adults.

Abstract

Melodic expectancies among children and adults were examined. In Experiment 1, adults, 11-year-olds, and 8-year-olds rated how well individual test tones continued fragments of melodies. In Experiment 2, 11-, 8-, and 5-year-olds sang continuations to 2-tone stimuli. Response patterns were analyzed using 2 models of melodic expectancy. Despite having fewer predictor variables, the 2-factor model (E. G. Schellenberg, 1997) equaled or surpassed the implication-realization model (E. Narmour, 1990) in predictive accuracy. Listeners of all ages expected the next tone in a melody to be proximate in pitch to the tone heard most recently. Older listeners also expected reversals of pitch direction, specifically for tones that changed direction after a disruption of proximity and for tones that formed symmetric patterns.

Expectation in Melody: The Influence of Context and Learning

“…In both studies, it was found that the model developed by Krumhansl (1995a) provided a much better fit to the data than those of Krumhansl (1995b) and Schellenberg (1996Schellenberg ( , 1997. By contrast, Schellenberg et al (2002) have found the opposite to be true in experiments with adults and infants in a task involving the rating of continuation tones following contexts taken from Acadian (French Canadian) folk songs. They suggest that the difference may be attributable partly to the fact that none of the musical contexts used in the experiments of Krumhansl et al (1999Krumhansl et al ( , 2000 ended in unambiguously large and implicative intervals (Schellenberg et al, 2002, p. 530).…”

“…They suggest that the difference may be attributable partly to the fact that none of the musical contexts used in the experiments of Krumhansl et al (1999Krumhansl et al ( , 2000 ended in unambiguously large and implicative intervals (Schellenberg et al, 2002, p. 530). While Schellenberg et al (2002) and Krumhansl et al (1999) found strong support for the principle of proximity with only limited influence of registral return and intervallic difference, Krumhansl et al (2000) found the strongest bottom-up influence came from the principle of intervallic difference with weak support for the principles of proximity and registral return. The consonance predictors of Krumhansl (1995a) made a strong contribution to both models especially in the case of the folk hymns (Krumhansl et al, 1999(Krumhansl et al, , 2000.…”

“…Registral return is a general implication for a return to the pitch region (Ϯ2 semitones) of the first tone of an implicative interval in cases where the realized interval reverses the registral direction of the implicative interval. Krumhansl (1995b) coded this principle as a dichotomy although Narmour (1990) distinguishes between exact and near registral return suggesting that the principle be graded as a function of the size of the interval between the realized tone and the first tone of the implicative interval (Schellenberg, 1996;Schellenberg, Adachi, Purdy, & McKinnon, 2002). This principle can be viewed as an application of the Gestalt principles of proximity in terms of pitch and similarity in terms of pitch interval.…”

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

“…Deutsch (2013) has suggested that these shapes (P*R0P*) may have been laid down in infant development and perhaps derive from the common paralinguistic contours of speech directed toward soothing infants. Other studies conclude instead that reversal is not inborn (Schellenberg, Adachi, Purdy, & McKinnon, 2002) but rather learned (Patel, 2008;Vos & Troost, 1989) as an archetypal schema (stylistically described by Meyer, 1956Meyer, , 1973Meyer, , 1989Meyer, , 2000Narmour, 1990;Rosner & Meyer, 1982.…”

“…From this beginning, many experiments based on the I-R model ensued (e.g., Cuddy & Lunney, 1995;Krumhansl, 1991bKrumhansl, , 1995aKrumhansl, , 1995bKrumhansl, , 1997Krumhansl et al, 2000;Pearce & Wiggins, 2006;Schellenberg 1996Schellenberg , 1997Schellenberg et al, 2002;Schmuckler, 1989;Thompson, Balkwill, & Vernescu, 2000;Thompson, Cuddy, & Plaus, 1997;Thompson & Stanton, 1998). For other important studies on melodic implication, see Carlsen (1981), Larson (2004), Margulis (2005), and Unyk and Carlsen (1987).…”