Tracking time with song and count: Different Weber functions for musicians and nonmusicians

Abstract

Participants reproduced target intervals of 6-24 sec with finger taps, with target intervals presented before each of 30 reproductions. During the presentation of the target and reproduction, nonmusician participants were asked to count, sing, or do nothing. In another part of the experiment, musicians were asked to count or sing. Segmentation, either by song or count, minimized deviations from targets and reduced the coefficient of variation (CV) to one third of the nonmusicians' CVs in the no-segmentation condition. The mean deviation from target was significantly lower for musicians than for nonmusicians, as were the musicians' CVs (half the value of the nonmusicians). Most importantly, although the CV of nonmusicians was invariant over the range of intervals conforming to a strict scalar property, it decreased significantly for musicians as target intervals increased.

About the (Non)scalar Property for Time Perception

“…Explicit count of numbers reduces very much the Weber fraction from 1 to 2 s, but this fraction remains stable from 2 to 4 s ( [56], Experiment 2). Some human data show that the Weber fraction remains constant, even without counting, for intervals up to 24 s for an interval reproduction task [57,58], and that this fraction is even reduced with longer intervals when explicit counting is adopted [58]. The reduction of the Weber fraction with longer intervals was observed in Grondin and Killeen [57] only with musicians, not with non-musicians, and this observation applies with both the use of explicit counting and singing for segmenting time.…”

“…Some human data show that the Weber fraction remains constant, even without counting, for intervals up to 24 s for an interval reproduction task [57,58], and that this fraction is even reduced with longer intervals when explicit counting is adopted [58]. The reduction of the Weber fraction with longer intervals was observed in Grondin and Killeen [57] only with musicians, not with non-musicians, and this observation applies with both the use of explicit counting and singing for segmenting time. Note finally that, when a series of intervals is produced sequentially, the Weber fraction increases with longer intervals (up to 24 s-non-musician participants) in spite of the use of explicit counting [59].…”

“…One can choose to count numbers explicitly, and count rapidly or slowly, depending on the intervals to deal with. If not numbers, one may adopt other strategies including foot tapping like a drummer, imagining the hand of a clock for counting seconds, or even simply singing [57,59].…”

Impaired Numerical Ability Affects Supra-Second Time Estimation

“…When typical numerically developed individuals need to perform supra-second timing estimation, they often rely on counting strategies (Brown et al, 1995;Gilaie-Dotan, Kanai & Rees, unpublished observations;Gilliland & Martin, 1940) that allow them to estimate slightly better supra-second intervals (Grondin et al, 1999(Grondin et al, , 2004Rakitin et al, 1998; but see . Studies investigating the effectiveness of counting found that counting is advantageous for estimating intervals longer than 1.18 s but not for sub-second intervals (Grondin et al, 1999(Grondin et al, , 2004 and that musicians with extensive musical training reproduce supra-second intervals more accurately than non-musicians, whether relying on counting or singing (Grondin & Killeen, 2009). Due to this common tendency to use counting for estimating supra-second intervals, studies examining supra-second timing mechanisms often use a dual task to interfere or prevent counting (see Rakitin et al, 1998), or specifically instruct participants not to count when timing Rakitin et al, 1998;Treisman, 1984).…”

Self-Generated Interval Subdivision Reduces Variability of Synchronization with a Very Slow Metronome

“…Recently, Grondin and Killeen (2009) compared musicians' and nonmusicians' accuracy in an interval reproduction task that involved counting and singing during the intervals. Nonmusicians' reproduction accuracy was much improved by these filler activities, and musicians performed even better than nonmusicians.…”