Priming in melody perception: Tracking down the strength of cognitive expectations.

Abstract

The musical priming paradigm has shown facilitated processing for tonally related over less-related targets. However, the congruence between tonal relatedness and the psychoacoustical properties of music challenges cognitive interpretations of the involved processes. Our goal was to show that cognitive expectations (based on listeners' tonal knowledge) elicit tonal priming in melodies independently of sensory components (e.g., spectral overlap). A first priming experiment minimized sensory components by manipulating tonal relatedness with a single note change in the melodies. Processing was facilitated for related over less-related target tones, but an auditory short-term memory model succeeded in simulating this effect, thus suggesting a sensory-based explanation. When the same melodies were played with pure tones (instead of piano tones), the sensory model failed to differentiate between related and less-related targets, while listeners' data continued to show a tonal relatedness effect (Experiment 2). The tonal priming effect observed here thus provides strong evidence for the influence of listeners' tonal knowledge on music processing. The overall findings point out the need for controlled musical material (and notably beyond tone repetition) to study cognitive components in music perception.

Empirical evidence for musical syntax processing? Computer simulations reveal the contribution of auditory short-term memory

“…This model proved to be successful for the simulation of a major study in tonal perception (Krumhansl and Kessler, 1982). The model is freely available as a MATLAB toolbox (Leman et al, 2001, see www.ipem.ugent.be/Toolbox), allows starting the simulations from the auditory signal and has been already used in several studies investigating tonal structure processing (e.g., Koelsch et al, 2007; Marmel et al, 2010). …”

Memory for musical tones: the impact of tonality and the creation of false memories

“…Empirical work has been similarly prolific over this time period (Carlsen et al, 1970; Carlsen, 1981, 1982; Jones, 1981, 1982; Bharucha and Stoeckig, 1986, 1987; Boltz, 1989, 1993; Schmuckler, 1989, 1990; Jones, 1990; Bharucha, 1994; Krumhansl, 1995; Schellenberg, 1996, 1997; Tekman and Bharucha, 1998; Tillmann et al, 1998, 2000, 2003; Larson, 2002, 2004; Bigand et al, 2003; Margulis, 2005; Ockelford, 2006; Pearce and Wiggins, 2006, 2012; Marmel et al, 2008, 2010; Marmel and Tillmann, 2009; Thorpe et al, 2011; Ockelford and Sargeant, 2012). This work has also explored multiple aspects of musical expectancy, and has similarly highlighted the factors underlying expectancy formation, along with the impact of expectancy formation for on-going musical processing and subsequent musical memory.…”

Tonal priming is resistant to changes in pitch height

“…It is uncertain whether tonal priming remains resistant to pitch height changes in a context with a much smaller pitch range, such as a monophonic melody, which consists of single notes. Tonal priming is functional in a melodic context (Marmel, Perrin, & Tillmann, 2011;Marmel & Tillmann, 2009;Marmel et al, 2010;Marmel, Tillmann, & Dowling, 2008), but melodies rarely exceed a pitch range of 1.5 octaves (typically the range is much smaller). Future research should focus on testing the effect of pitch height on tonal priming in a melodic context.…”

“…This phenomenon typically refers to the fact that for listeners enculturated in Western music, a prime chord (multiple simultaneous notes) creates a strong expectation for a musically related chord (Bharucha & Stoeckig, 1986;Bigand, Poulin, Tillmann, Madurell, & D'Adamo, 2003). This concept is equally applicable to monophonic sequences of single notes, or melodies (Boltz, 1989;Marmel & Tillmann, 2009;Marmel, Tillmann, & Delbe, 2010).…”

“…Leman (2000) proposed a model to account for tonality by using short-term memory and periodicity pitch, implying that tonality is in fact a sensory phenomenon and need not involve any cognitive processing. However, more recent evidence has argued strongly against a purely sensory account of tonal priming (Bigand et al, 2003;Marmel et al, 2010;Vuvan & Schmuckler, 2011). A recent comprehensive review, meta-analysis, and updated modeling of numerous priming studies demonstrated that both sensory and cognitive factors play roles in tonal priming, and moreover, that cognitive factors prevail as the more influential ones (Collins et al, 2014).…”