Sensorimotor Grounding of Musical Embodiment and the Role of Prediction: A Review

Abstract

In a previous article, we reviewed empirical evidence demonstrating action-based effects on music perception to substantiate the musical embodiment thesis (Maes et al., 2014). Evidence was largely based on studies demonstrating that music perception automatically engages motor processes, or that body states/movements influence music perception. Here, we argue that more rigorous evidence is needed before any decisive conclusion in favor of a “radical” musical embodiment thesis can be posited. In the current article, we provide a focused review of recent research to collect further evidence for the “radical” embodiment thesis that music perception is a dynamic process firmly rooted in the natural disposition of sounds and the human auditory and motor system. Though, we emphasize that, on top of these natural dispositions, long-term processes operate, rooted in repeated sensorimotor experiences and leading to learning, prediction, and error minimization. This approach sheds new light on the development of musical repertoires, and may refine our understanding of action-based effects on music perception as discussed in our previous article (Maes et al., 2014). Additionally, we discuss two of our recent empirical studies demonstrating that music performance relies on similar principles of sensorimotor dynamics and predictive processing.

Applying music-and-movement to promote agency development in music education: a case study in a special school

“…In general, agency is a capacity for intentional, controlled action, alluding the existence of an entity (Moran, 2018). Our stance concurs with the embodied mind paradigm (see Johnson & Rohrer, 2007;Lakoff & Johnson, 1999;Määttänen, 2015;Matyja & Schiavio, 2013;Maes, 2016;Merleau-Ponty, 1962;Meynell, 2009;Shapiro, 2010). Therefore, here, agency is understood as an embodied capacity for action in changing relational contexts, through which individuals adapt and accommodate their actions accordingly.…”

Embodied Music Cognition: Trouble Ahead, Trouble Behind

“…Consider Maes (2016) proposal for grounding EMC in terms of dynamic systems. Maes collects empirical evidence and radicalizes the (already vague) EMC basic principle by arguing that “music perception is a dynamic process firmly rooted in the natural disposition of sounds and the human auditory and motor system” (Maes, 2016, p. 1). The basic principle of EMC is “radicalized” by showing the ways in which it is consistent with recent research on predictive coding and dynamic systems in cognitive science.…”

“…The issues of how empirical data relates to theory of EMC has been recently of interests for some researchers (e.g. Schiavio, 2014; Maes, 2016). For instance, Maes (2016, p. 2)—inspired by Mahon and Caramazza (2008)—briefly underlines the worry regarding the drawing of (theoretical) conclusions from available empirical data in EMC research.…”

“…For instance, Maes (2016, p. 2)—inspired by Mahon and Caramazza (2008)—briefly underlines the worry regarding the drawing of (theoretical) conclusions from available empirical data in EMC research. However, after mentioning the worry he goes on suggesting the need for “collecting further empirical evidence and computational models to substantiate the role of interaction in the embodied thesis in the domain of music perception and performance” (Maes, 2016, p. 2). The problem is, however, that the reference to present or future data itself is not enough to “substantiate” the initial EMC hypothesis.…”

Unimodal and cross-modal prediction is enhanced in musicians

“…Prediction errors drive both cognitive processing and learning 31 . Perception of musical rhythm and meter have been framed in the context of predictive theories 32 , as well as the relationship between perception and action in musical performance 33 . Error (and prediction error) minimization is the core concept shared by these accounts.…”