2021
DOI: 10.1111/cogs.13037
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pitches that Wire Together Fire Together: Scale Degree Associations Across Time Predict Melodic Expectations

Abstract: The ongoing generation of expectations is fundamental to listeners' experience of music, but research into types of statistical information that listeners extract from musical melodies has tended to emphasize transition probabilities and n-grams, with limited consideration given to other types of statistical learning that may be relevant. Temporal associations between scale degrees represent a different type of information present in musical melodies that can be learned from musical corpora using expectation n… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
(97 reference statements)
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We used an “off-the-shelf” implementation in which the model was pre-trained on a large corpus of Western melodies with the following parameters: learning rate = 0.001, batch size = 128, number of layers = 2 × 512 nodes, attention length = 40, dropout rate = 0.5. Internal model weights were optimized during training to maximize the probability mass assigned to the note occurring at t n+1 given the pitch and duration of previous notes from t 1:n .We used the “Attention” configuration of melodyRNN ( 34, 68 ), which enables the model to learn long-term dependencies characteristic of music that traditional Markov-based approaches fail to capture ( 69 ). For all phrases in the current stimulus set, melodyRNN was used to calculate the surprisal of each note, defined as the negative log probability of the note e that occurred at position i , given the MIDI pitch and duration (quantized to the nearest 16 th note) of preceding notes in the melody: We also computed the uncertainty of the melody at each timestep, which is defined as the entropy of the probability distribution over an alphabet of K possible notes: Surprisal and uncertainty are complementary measures in that the former indicates the extent to which an event deviated from preexisting expectations, while the latter conveys the specificity of those expectations in anticipation of the event.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used an “off-the-shelf” implementation in which the model was pre-trained on a large corpus of Western melodies with the following parameters: learning rate = 0.001, batch size = 128, number of layers = 2 × 512 nodes, attention length = 40, dropout rate = 0.5. Internal model weights were optimized during training to maximize the probability mass assigned to the note occurring at t n+1 given the pitch and duration of previous notes from t 1:n .We used the “Attention” configuration of melodyRNN ( 34, 68 ), which enables the model to learn long-term dependencies characteristic of music that traditional Markov-based approaches fail to capture ( 69 ). For all phrases in the current stimulus set, melodyRNN was used to calculate the surprisal of each note, defined as the negative log probability of the note e that occurred at position i , given the MIDI pitch and duration (quantized to the nearest 16 th note) of preceding notes in the melody: We also computed the uncertainty of the melody at each timestep, which is defined as the entropy of the probability distribution over an alphabet of K possible notes: Surprisal and uncertainty are complementary measures in that the former indicates the extent to which an event deviated from preexisting expectations, while the latter conveys the specificity of those expectations in anticipation of the event.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, statistical learning might well be important for predicting events across time (e.g., Endress & de Seyssel, under review; Morgan et al, 2019;Sherman & Turk-Browne, 2020;Turk-Browne et al, 2010;Verosky & Morgan, 2021) and space (Theeuwes et al, 2022), an ability that is clearly critical for mature language processing (e.g., Levy, 2008;Trueswell et al, 1999) as well as many other processes (e.g., Clark, 2013;Friston, 2010;Keller & Mrsic-Flogel, 2018).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, statistical learning might well be important for predicting events across time (e.g., Endress & de Seyssel, under review; Morgan et al., 2019; Sherman & Turk‐Browne, 2020; Turk‐Browne et al., 2010; Verosky & Morgan, 2021) and space (Theeuwes et al., 2022), an ability that is clearly critical for mature language processing (e.g., Levy, 2008; Trueswell et al., 1999) as well as many other processes (e.g., Clark, 2013; Friston, 2010; Keller & Mrsic‐Flogel, 2018). This suggests that predictive processing might also be crucial for word learning, but it is an important topic for further research to find out how predictive processing is used during language acquisition and which mechanisms are used for word segmentation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, statistical learning might well be important for predicting events across time (e.g., Endress & de Seyssel, under review;Morgan, Fogel, Nair, & Patel, 2019;Sherman & Turk-Browne, 2020;Turk-Browne, Scholl, Johnson, & Chun, 2010;Verosky & Morgan, 2021) and space (Theeuwes, Bogaerts, & van Moorselaar, 2022), an ability that is clearly critical for mature language processing (e.g., Levy, 2008;Trueswell, Sekerina, Hill, & Logrip, 1999) (as well as many other processes; Clark, 2013;Friston, 2010;Keller & Mrsic-Flogel, 2018). This suggests that predictive processing might also be crucial for word learning, but it is an important topic for further research to find out how predictive processing is used during language acquisition.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%