Tapping in Time with Mechanically and Expressively Performed Music

Abstract

We investigate how the presence of performance microstructure (small variations in timing, intensity, and articulation) influences listeners' perception of musical excerpts, by measuring the way in which listeners synchronize with the excerpts. Musicians and nonmusicians tapped on a drum in synchrony with six musical excerpts, each presented in three versions: mechanical (synthesized from the score, without microstructure), accented (mechanical, with intensity accents), and expressive (performed by a concert pianist, with all types of microstructure). Participants' synchronizations with these excerpts were characterized in terms of three processes described in Mari Riess Jones's Dynamic Attending Theory: attunement (ease of synchronization), use of a referent level (spontaneous synchronization rate), and focal attending (range of synchronization levels). As predicted by beat induction models, synchronization was better with the temporally regular mechanical and accented versions than with the expressive versions. However, synchronization with expressive versions occurred at higher (slower) levels, within a narrower range of synchronization levels, and corresponded more frequently to the theoretically correct metrical hierarchy. We conclude that performance microstructure transmits a particular metrical interpretation to the listener and enables the perceptual organization of events over longer time spans. Compared with nonmusicians, musicians synchronized more accurately (heightened attunement), tapped more slowly (slower referent level), and used a wider range of hierarchical levels when instructed (enhanced focal attending), more often corresponding to the theoretically correct metrical hierarchy. We conclude that musicians perceptually organize events over longer time spans and have a more complete hierarchical representation of the music than do nonmusicians.

Tapping to Carter: Mensural Determinacy in Complex Rhythmic Sequences

“…For example, in a study that combined structural equation modeling and covariance analysis, Magill and Pressing (1997) were able to demonstrate that a cognitive clock model based on nonisochronous pulses provided a good fit for most of the polyrhythmic patterns performed by an expert master drummer from West Africa. More generally, musicians have been found to exhibit enhanced skills in rhythmic tasks, such as lower thresholds for detecting timing deviations (Rammsayer & Altenmüller, 2006;Jones et al, 1995), access to a larger number of pulse levels (Drake, Jones, & Baruch, 2000;Drake, Penel, & Bigand, 2000), and greater facility in finding and subdividing an implied beat (Jones & Yee, 1997;Palmer & Krumhansl, 1990). Furthermore, although they are more sensitive to timing deviations, musicians are also more resilient to timing irregularities in pulse attribution tasks (Madison & Merker, 2002).…”

“…Thus, in most psychological studies, meter is tied to tactus, that is, a comfortable pulse level whose rate falls within boundaries that are closely related to bodily rhythms such as heart rate and walking speed (≈ 67-200 beats per minute, which corresponds to IOIs of 300-900 msec; e.g., see Todd, Cousins, & Lee, 2007). Given the central role tapping studies have played in shaping our understanding of pulse (and meter) perception, and that, with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Drake, Penel, & Bigand, 2000;Martens, 2011;Snyder & Krumhansl, 2001;Toiviainen & Snyder, 2003;Vuust et al, 2011), most of the stimuli used in these studies are not from actual music, we might ask how widely applicable these findings are. [3] The present study explores the phenomenon of mensural determinacy in complex rhythmic sequences.…”

“…In actual music, there can be several different possible periodicities to attune to, and meter itself is conceptualized as a nested hierarchy of at least two pulse levels related to each other by simple ratios such as 2:1, 3:1, or 4:1 (e.g., Keller & Burnham, 2005, p. 630;Yeston, 1976). Even if focal attention tasks are used, that is, tasks in which participants are asked to tap at the next higher and/or lower pulse levels (e.g., Drake, Jones, & Baruch, 2000;Drake, Penel, & Bigand, 2000), metric perception as such is only witnessed indirectly. [2] The use of neuroscientific methods has opened new possibilities for the observation of temporal processing, but much work is still needed to clarify how different timing mechanisms (such as "beat-based" and "interval-based" mechanisms; see Repp & Su, 2013, pp.…”

Rhythm in shoes: student perceptions of the integration of tap dance into choral music

“…Perception of rhythm is associated with the identification of a pulse, which occurs at evenly spaced moments in time (Cooper and Meyer, 1960;Lerdahl and Jackendoff, 1983). While it is common when individuals hear music for them to move to the beat (Drake, et al, 2000), it implies the potential importance of motor networks.…”

Tapping to Carter: A Response to Fischinger and Dyck-Hemming

“…Given that the reviewers seem to agree that the loss of some degree of ecological validity may be unavoidable in using experimental methods, and that the manipulations employed in the current study are well represented in previous beat finding experiments using actual music as source materials (e.g., Drake, Penel, & Bigand, 2000;Snyder & Krumhansl, 2001;Toiviainen & Snyder, 2003), my response to their commentary will focus mainly on the first two issues raised. The goal of this response is to clarify the methodology used in relation to the research questions and source materials as well as to shed some light on the implications of the findings for future research.…”