The Organization of Perception and Action

MacKay, Donald G.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4754-8

Cited by 400 publications

(141 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

130

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current results are consistent with the idea that perception and action share a common representation (e.g., Hommel et al, 2001;MacKay, 1987). In this account, disruption results when perceived note events match events other than the current event.…”

Section: The Coordination Of Perception and Actionsupporting

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Auditory Feedback in Music Performance: The Role of Melodic Structure and Musical Skill.

Pfordresher¹

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Five experiments explored whether fluency in musical sequence production relies on matches between the contents of auditory feedback and the planned outcomes of actions. Participants performed short melodies from memory on a keyboard while musical pitches that sounded in synchrony with each keypress (feedback contents) were altered. Results indicated that altering pitch contents can disrupt production, but only when altered pitches form a sequence that is structurally similar to the planned sequence. These experiments also addressed the role of musical skill: Experiments 1 and 3 included trained pianists; other experiments included participants with little or no musical training. Results were similar across both groups with respect to the disruptive effects of auditory feedback manipulations. These results support the idea that a common hierarchical representation guides sequences of actions and the perception of event sequences and that this coordination is not acquired from learned associations formed by musical skill acquisition.

show abstract

Section: The Coordination Of Perception and Actionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Activation mechanisms figure into many models of sequence production (e.g., Dell, 1986). By way of comparison, my use of the term activation is similar to MacKay's (1987) use of the term priming. Figure 1.…”

Section: Current Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory Feedback in Music Performance: The Role of Melodic Structure and Musical Skill.

Pfordresher¹

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Semantic, morphological, and phonological aspccts of any lexical item's structure arc represented separately within this network, but there is no division of the network to reflect this separation, with the result that activation can flow in either direction within any combi nation of these aspects of representation. Similar proposals for a lexical network have been made by Stemberger (1985) and MacKay (1987).…”

Section: Interaction Between Stages Of Production a Interactive Modesupporting

confidence: 63%

“…T O T states arc more common on low-than on high-frcqucncy words (possibly better estimated by subjec tive than objective frcqucncy; R. Brown & ;McNeill, 1966). The facilitatory cffccts of frequency suggested by these findings arc instantiated in the log ogen model (Morton, 1969) by differing levels of resting activation, in spreading-activation models by different weights on connections (e.g., MacKay, 1987), or by the number of connections to representations of possible contexts (Dell, 1990). However, frcqucncy effects in homophones (great/grate) are determined by combined frcqucncy rather than individual sense frequency (Dell, 1990;Jeschcniak & Levelt, 1994), suggesting that they arc located at word-form rather than lemma level.…”

Section: Frcqucncy Of Occurrencementioning

confidence: 91%

Spoken Word Recognition and Production

CUTLER¹

1995

Speech, Language, and Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most language behavior consists of speaking and listening. However, the recognition and production of spoken words have not always been central topics in psycholinguistic research. Considering the two fields together in one chapter reveals differences and similarities. Spokcn-word recognition studies began in earnest in the 1970s, prompted on one hand by the develop ment of laboratory tasks involving auditory presentation and on the other hand by the realization that the growing body of data on visual word recognition (see Scidenbcrg, Chapter 5, this volume) did not necessarily apply to listening, bccausc of the temporal nature of speech signals. This recognition research has been, to a great extent, model driven. Spokcnword production research, on the other hand, has a longer history but a less intimate relationship with theory. Laboratory tasks for studying production are difficult to devise, so that much research addressed production failure, such as slips of the tongue. An unhappy result of this focus has been models of production that are largely determined by the characteristics of failed rather than succcssful operation of the processes modeled; moreover, the models have rarely prompted new research. Only in recent years have mod els and laboratory studies of successful production bccomc widely available. Despite these differences, theoretical questions in recognition and produc- Speech, Language, and Communication

show abstract

“…Results in Experiment 1 for CVs and error rates converged with findings that disruption from asynchronous feedback increases as feedback onsets approach the next produced onset time (Finney & Warren, 2002;Robinson, 1972). The results of these studies are inconsistent with the idea that a "critical interval" exists for delays around 200 ms (MacKay, 1987) and are more consistent with an account of disruption based on relative timing (e.g., Finney & Warren, 2002;Howell et al, 1983). The .66 shift in Experiment 1 yielded an average absolute time lag of 345 ms for feedback onsets, with time lags ranging from 270 to 435 ms. By contrast, the .5 and .33 shifts yielded absolute delay amounts closer to 200 ms (50% delay: M ϭ 264 ms, range ϭ 196 -329 ms; 33% delay: M ϭ 167 ms, range ϭ 129 -204 ms), but they elicited lower disruption.…”

Section: Links Between Perception and Actionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Auditory feedback in music performance: Evidence for a dissociation of sequencing and timing.

Pfordresher¹

2003

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments examined temporal relationships between actions and auditory feedback in music performance. Experiment 1 incorporated phase shifts of feedback, which disrupted produced timing but not overall accuracy. Experiment 2 incorporated period shifts of pitch contents for synchronized feedback that primarily disrupted accuracy more than timing. Experiment 3 incorporated combined phase and period shifts, which caused moderate disruption to timing and accuracy and revealed interactive effects of period and phase shifts on production. A 4th experiment included all feedback conditions in the same session to confirm differences across Experiments 1-3. These results are consistent with the view that actions and their perceptual consequences are coordinated in a way that distinguishes timing (phase shifts) from sequencing (period shifts).

show abstract

The Organization of Perception and Action

Cited by 400 publications

References 0 publications

Auditory Feedback in Music Performance: The Role of Melodic Structure and Musical Skill.

Auditory Feedback in Music Performance: The Role of Melodic Structure and Musical Skill.

Spoken Word Recognition and Production

Auditory feedback in music performance: Evidence for a dissociation of sequencing and timing.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About