Processing Expectancy Violations during Music Performance and Perception: An ERP Study

Abstract

Musicians are highly trained motor experts with pronounced associations between musical actions and the corresponding auditory effects. However, the importance of auditory feedback for music performance is controversial, and it is unknown how feedback during music performance is processed. The present study investigated the neural mechanisms underlying the processing of auditory feedback manipulations in pianists. To disentangle effects of action-based and perception-based expectations, we compared feedback manipulations during performance to the mere perception of the same stimulus material. In two experiments, pianists performed bimanually sequences on a piano, while at random positions, the auditory feedback of single notes was manipulated, thereby creating a mismatch between an expected and actually perceived action effect (action condition). In addition, pianists listened to tone sequences containing the same manipulations (perception condition). The manipulations in the perception condition were either task-relevant (Experiment 1) or task-irrelevant (Experiment 2). In action and perception conditions, event-related potentials elicited by manipulated tones showed an early fronto-central negativity around 200 msec, presumably reflecting a feedback ERN/N200, followed by a positive deflection (P3a). The early negativity was more pronounced during the action compared to the perception condition. This shows that during performance, the intention to produce specific auditory effects leads to stronger expectancies than the expectancies built up during music perception.

Monitoring Individual and Joint Action Outcomes in Duet Music Performance

“…Thus, there was no evidence of post-error slowing (Rabbitt, 1966) in any of the conditions, consistent with previous work showing a lack of post-error slowing in response to altered auditory outcomes in solo piano performance (Maidhof et al, 2009). The average IOI of 721.29 msec (SD = 26.23) was faster than the prescribed tempo of 800 msec per IOI, t(11) = 10.47, p < .001, consistent with previous work on duet performance paced by an initial metronome (Loehr & Palmer, 2011).…”

“…Further support for this interpretation is gained by comparing the current results to those of Maidhof et al (2009), who showed that the FRN in response to altered auditory outcomes was larger when pianists produced the musical sequences themselves compared with when they merely heard the sequences. If pianistsʼ expectations about their partnerʼs actions were based solely on perceptual processes in the current study, the FRN elicited by alterations of the partnerʼs part should have been smaller than the FRN elicited by alterations of the pianistʼs own part.…”

“…Consequently, manipulating the auditory outcomes associated with musiciansʼ movements so that they do not match action-based expectations disrupts solo performance (Keller & Koch, 2006;Pfordresher, 2003;see Pfordresher, 2006, for a review) and elicits ERP components associated with action monitoring (Maidhof, Vavatzanidis, Prinz, Rieger, & Koelsch, 2009;Katahira, Abla, Masuda, & Okanoya, 2008). Maidhof et al (2009) asked pianists to perform musical sequences on a keyboard while the pitches associated with their keystrokes were occasionally altered to produce a mismatch between the actual and expected action outcome. EEG activity in response to altered pitches revealed both an FRN and a P300 compared with EEG activity elicited by correct pitches.…”

Neural networks for harmonic structure in music perception and action

“…Therefore, the implicit knowledge of harmonic 61 regularities might influence not only listeners' predictions, but also musicians' action 62 planning during performance (Palmer and van de Sande, 1995). While regularity-based 4 predictions during music listening have already been thoroughly investigated (Rohrmeier and 64 Koelsch, 2012;Tillmann, 2012), the neural basis of motor predictions in musical actions has not been explored in depth (Maidhof et al, 2009;Ruiz et al, 2009). Recent behavioural 66 (Novembre and Keller, 2011) and electrophysiological studies on music production (Bianco 67 et al, 2016;Sammler et al, 2013b) revealed slower response times, higher number of errors 68 and neural processing costs (a centro-parietal negativity) in expert pianists when asked to 69 silently execute harmonically incongruent compared to congruent chord progressions.…”

Welche Musik für welchen Menschen? Einfluss von Musik auf Herz- und Kreislauf

“…Musik ist der Schlüssel zur zerebralen Harmonie und wer sich mit Musik beschäftigt, summt, singt, musiziert, rhythmisch tanzt oder trommelt, ist ausgeglichen und zufrieden. Die Wege der zerebralen Verarbeitung vom "Musik hören", "Musik spielen" und dem "Musikgedächtnis" sind mittlerweile gut bekannt [3,10,23,34].…”