Class Notes (837,612)
Canada (510,370)
Psychology (7,785)
PSYC56H3 (33)
Lecture 8

Lecture 8

7 Pages
Unlock Document

Mark Schmuckler

PSYC56 Music Cognition Lecture 8 Musical Expectancy Time, Rhythm, and Meter Musical Expectancy The Formation of Musical Expectancies  Meyer talked about implicative patterns or patterns that would imply a continuation or generating expectancy based on Gestalt notions. There is a structural leap; we expect that to be filled in, as a notion of closure or completion.  There can also be a pattern increasing, we would expect a tone that would continue that pattern.  According to Meyer, on the basis of patterns, we could have expectations for the notes that are going to come next.  Schmuckler was interested in what drives our expectations to occur at different times. He took eight measures of a complex musical passage. Looking over this passage, based on melodic features, was able to identify 10 different propositions.  Listeners would hear the passage and said it would go one more note, and asked listeners to rate how that element fit in with expectations that were going to fit in at that point. In one they heard melody line, the harmonic accompaniment, or both.  At PP2 there is pattern that is going up, so we may expect continuation based on the linear pattern.  In context, heard a melody, then trial 1 heard a note after the melody, and was asked to rate how well that note fit in.  The note F got the highest rating that was the note listeners predicted was going to occur. Listeners gave a very high rating to the note F.  More generally, in Probe Position 2, listeners rating for their expectations were very much driven by , tested Meyer’s notions of gap fills and linear patterns, second factor that was tested was the idea of tonality, this piece is in a particular key, and maybe what listeners expect are tones that fit in well with it, a third factor looked at was melodic contour, how well was general pattern of the contour drive expectations.  The open squares are the strength of the prediction based on ideas from Meyers, the open circles are the predictions based on tonality, how well the tonal structure drives it, the closed triangles are predictions based on contour and this is across 10 different propositions.  Generally found expectations were contributed by tonality and melodic process contributed significantly. Contour never predicted listeners’ predictions.  Note both open factors predicted listeners’ expectations and they had a relationship, when melodic process got stronger, tonality decreased, and when tonality increased, melodic process got weaker.  Melodic process is the name Meyer gave to Gestalt patterns.  We can model and look at listeners expectations to what is occurring through a musical passage and we can make predictions based on melodic processes and tonality. Listeners expectations are predictable and we can develop models for what we think is going to occur next. The Implication-Realization Model  Narmour defined 5 different rules for patterns of Meyer, and these rules drive our expectations.  If there is a small interval between two notes, you are going to expect another small interval in that same direction. But if you have a large reversal, you are going to expect the next interval to come down- registral direction.  We expect small intervals not large intervals- intervallic difference.  Narmour took these rules and applied them to passages of music. He used this to provide theoretical analysis and to show where our expectations would be strongest in a piece. This model actually suggests that this is the core of one’s expectations and we would be perceiving intervals in keeping with these types of expectations.  Is there any evidence, and do we see listeners expect intervals to occur based on these principles?  Schellenberg took Narmour’s ideas and used them so that he can drive predictions. He quantified Narmour’s rules and quantified them. * rd  He played listeners 2 notes then played a 3 note and asked how did this fit their expectations and he did it for all the implicative intervals, and then looked at listeners ratings and try to predict what their expectations would be based on principles.  He found pretty convincing evidence that these principles seem to work. He found evidence for these factors but not all of them. Simplification of Narmour’s Implication-Realization Model  Schellenberg was able to simplify his model to two factors, the notion that is you have a implicative interval, you have some expectations for it to be the same size interval in the opposite direction. This was a combination of proximity, intervallic difference, and closure on slide 11 gave the structures on slide 12. Tonality was also important for driving expectations.  Also found principles occurred cross-culture, and drove expectancies in other cultures. This is interesting because these factors are presumably based on low level Gestalt principles. Student asked if musical expectancy is innate? To prove that something is innate, you have to improve there is no experience that impacted this, and you have to test at the moment of birth which is hard because there is 9 months of experience in utero. If principles are common across culture, then you wouldn’t argue innate as you would say there may be a genetic basis for these things, that doesn’t mean experience isn’t important in bringing them out. Harmonic Expectancies  In previous study, if you look at staff B in slide 6, we can derive information for what chord is going to come next, and we can use Piston’s table of usual root progressions.  You see different scores of people’s expectancy, if you take the rating the chords that Piston’s said would follow and subtract what he said may follow, and this is driving listener’s expectations, the cords that often follow should have higher ratings than sometimes follow which should have higher rating than seldom follow. This works for the top often follows and sometimes follows. The sometimes don’t get higher than seldom, and seldom doesn’t get higher ratings than never. But at what chords are really expected vs. less expected, we can predict listeners ratings based on Piston’s theory. Combined (melodic and harmonic) expectancies  Other than one place (at 9 where harmonic did not contribute significantly) generally this is saying listeners expectancies of combination melodic and harmonic were added combination of melody plus harmony.  This additive model was tested against other interactive models, and the interactive model never predicted better than additive model.  Information given on slide 6 Schmuckler o Propositions refer to the different points in time. PP1, heard the context up to that point, and a bunch of continuations, then PP2, and a bunch of continuations, then PP3, then a bunch of continuations, until they got to PP10 they heard the whole 8 measures and rated the final piece. o One finding that was cool with the 3 conditions, melody only, harmony only, then combined melody and harmony. By the time they enter the third condition, the listeners have heard the entire piece, one of the things you can ask is what role does prior experience have in modifying their expectations. o The study did counterbalancing, where half heard full context, then moldy and harmony, then other half heard melody and harmony than full context. Found prior experience had no impact. Knowing what was going to occur did not change listener’s expectations. There are couple of places where there are surprises have such as PP1 that lower note, so that note raised listener’s expectations. o At PP6 listeners expected B flat not A flat, and when they heard the piece, expectancy of A flat but B flat was still the highest expectancy. o If expectancy is so important, why would we ever want to hear a piece of music a second time? This passage we have musical surprise, something unexpected occurs. We cannot be surprised by something we know is going to occur. How can we have musical surprise from music we have heard before? If expectancy is driven by low level factors, doesn’t matter that we have heard it before, they are still going to operate. The Harmonic Priming Paradigm  We have a notion of some response to the question of what questions drive our expectations.  We can also talk about the consequences of expectancy formation. What happens to us of our expecting certain events, how we perceive the passage and remember the passage? Does expectancy generation have an impact on how we understand the music?  One thing we can propose is maybe there is a processing advantage to processing events such that an expected event is perceived and processed quicker than unexpected event.  Stoeckig wanted to look at notion of impact on processing. If you have a particular concept or object, items that are highly semantically related to that are easier to respond to, it is like that initial item primes you to respond to another item. Semantic priming such as asking if this is a word after you prime with another word such as table, people will be quicker to say chair is a word than apple is a word based on table prime.  Listeners heard a first chord, than a second chord. The general idea is tell me whether the second chord is in tune or out of tune. The first volume is in tune and the second is out of tune.  In unrelated context, the first was in tune and the second was out of tune.  Stoeckig found a priming response. When in tune targets, the unrelated chords are processed slower than related chords. Just to say in tune, you are much quicker when second chord is harmonically related to the first chord. You see the reverse for out of tune, it takes more time for you to say that the related chord is out of tune than the unrelated chord. You get the same effect in error rates.  This is saying that expectancy, the idea that first chord sets up an expectation for what you are going to say next has an impact on how quickly and accurately you can perceive that upcoming chord.  The harmonic priming paradigm became fertile ground for researchers and they explored a huge wealth of questions. This research has been extremely influential. Harmonic context and phoneme monitoring  Argued that the harmonic structure is affecting processing of a number of musical passages. The generation of expectation leads us to processing advantages for any number of musical dimensions.  There is no reason
More Less

Related notes for PSYC56H3

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.