5 thoughts on “Musicae Scientiae

  1. The most current issue of Musicae Scientiae is from September 2013, and is a special issue on experimental replication. Each featured article featured is a replication of a previous music psychology study and is accompanied by commentary from the author of the original study. The studies replicated span from 1974-1994, and cover a wide-array of topics: absolute pitch, octave illusions, musical preference, and music in media effects on memory and processing. No articles were rhythm related.

  2. More recent articles dealing with temporal components involve movement/embodiment and structural components in musical time. These are three recent articles:

    A) Frühauf J., Kopiez, R., & Platz, Friedrich (2013). “Music on the timing grid: The influence of microtiming on the perceived groove quality of a simple drum pattern performance.” 17(2).

    In studying microtiming, the authors are concerned with perceived quality (operationalized as “groove quality”) of rock drum patterns. Deviations in timing (-25ms, -15ms, 0ms, 15ms, 25ms) between a snare and bass track were used as variables in an online study. Findings showed highest quality ratings for least timing deviations, higher ratings for late deviations versus early deviations, and higher ratings for deviations for the snare drum than the bass drum. Expertise with music genre had no effect.

    B) MacRitchie, J., Buck, B., & Bailey, N.J. (2013). “Inferring musical structure through bodily gestures.” 17(1).

    Bodily motion is discussed as meaningful for performance. In an exploratory study using motion capture, musicians were recorded while performing and their bodily motions analyzed, showing underlying musical structure in the musicians’ motion profiles. That is, the perfomers’ motions are constructed from the structures within the music (here, from the melodic and harmonic structures).

    C) Neuhaus, C. (2013). “Processing musical form: Behavioural and neurocognitive approaches.” 17(1).

    Memory for time-spans of music was investigated through perception of theme types (AABB or ABAB forms; average 10s long). ERPs were taken during exposure, followed by ratings of sequentiality (participant was given a force-choice task between sequential and hierarchical diagrams). Results showed higher non-sequential ratings for ABAB forms vs. AABB forms; chunking processes seemed to be influenced by rhythmic contrast and melodic contour. N300 peaks arose from pattern repetitions (either from AABB or non-immediate in ABAB).

    • These citations should be added to the bibliography with the abstract in the contents. You will also use this information for the final version of the main post.

      On another note, there seems to be some link to be established between the findings Frühauf & al. (2013) and those of experiment 1 in Large & Jones (1999), i.e., asymmetrical responses of early vs. late deviations. I don’t remember the specifics right now, but I wonder whether processing differences might account for the quality ratings.

      • I looked it us and the finding was that participants in experiment 1 were better at detecting late changes than early changes. Thus, it seems that these results contradict the trend that seems to be suggested by Frühauf & al. (2013). If the smallest timing deviations are perceived as higher in quality, than it would seem that timing deviations that are more difficult to detect (i.e., “early” ones based on Larger & Jones, 1999) would be given a higher quality rating than “late” ones. But the finding was the opposite. Was the Large & Jones’s findings discussed at all by Frühauf & al.?

Comments are closed.