Eye-Hand Span is not an Indicator of but a Strategy for Proficient Sight-Reading in Piano Performance

Abstract

Eye-hand span, i.e., the distance between a performer’s fixation and execution of a note, has been regarded as a decisive indicator of performers’ competence in sight-reading. However, integrated perspectives regarding the relationship between eye-hand span and sight-reading variables have been less discussed. The present study explored the process of sight-reading in terms of three domains and their interrelations. The domain indicators included musical complexity and playing tempo (musical domain), eye-hand span (cognitive domain), and performance accuracy (behavioural domain). Thirty professional pianists sight-read four musical pieces with two different complexities and playing tempi. We measured the participants’ eye-hand span, evaluated their performance accuracy, and divided the participants into three groups according to their performance accuracy values. Interestingly, we found that the eye-hand span did not change solely based on the performance accuracy. In contrast, the relationship between the eye-hand span and performance accuracy changed according to the difficulty of the sight-reading task. Our results demonstrate that the eye-hand span is not a decisive indicator of sight-reading proficiency but is a strategy that can vary according to the difficulty of sight-reading tasks. Thus, proficient sight-readers are performers who are skilled at adjusting their eye-hand span instead of always maintaining an extended span.

The association of eye movements and performance accuracy in a novel sight-reading task

“…Accordingly, they have received a lot of attention in previous studies (reviewed by Madell & Hébert, 30 and Puurtinen, 40 ). Amongst others, these studies provided findings how eye movements during sight-reading are associated with musical expertise ( 2 ; 17 ), practice ( 7 ; 44 ), or complexity ( 18 ; 29 ).…”

“…In such a case, researchers need to rely on algorithmic solutions. Currently, to my knowledge, there are only three studies that used algorithms to assess performance accuracy during sight-reading ( 14 ; 29 ; 20 ).…”

“…Drai-Zerbib et al ( 14 ) used a Visual Basic program in Excel and Lim et al ( 29 ) used a dynamic time-warping algorithm. In both studies, the algorithms were used to compare the recorded MIDI data from the participants with the MIDI data generated from the stimulus melodies.…”

“…In both studies, the algorithms were used to compare the recorded MIDI data from the participants with the MIDI data generated from the stimulus melodies. Lim et al ( 29 ) derived a measure of overall similarity in pitch and rhythm from this comparison. Additionally, the authors used another algorithm, a MIDI-to-MIDI alignment method described by Nakamura, Yoshii, and Katayose ( 34 ), to retrieve the number of pitch errors and timing errors separately.…”

What is your thought process during sight-reading? Advanced sight-readers’ strategies across different tonal environments

“…These readers (compared with less proficient readers) looked farther ahead and then back between points where melodic patterns separated, showing relatively active saccades (movements between visual fixations; for a review, see Puurtinen, 2018). Lim et al (2019) found advanced sight-readers regulated the distance they looked ahead as a strategy compared with less proficient readers. In other studies, proficient readers showed consistent eye movement patterns with more frequent and shorter fixations in specific areas of tonal music than less proficient readers (Waters & Underwood, 1998).…”