Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 202, Issue 1, pp 101–110 | Cite as

Self versus other in piano performance: detectability of timing perturbations depends on personal playing style

  • Bruno H. Repp
  • Peter E. Keller
Research Article

Abstract

Differences between recorded repetitions of one’s own movements are detected more readily than are differences between repetitions of others’ movements, suggesting improved visual discrimination due to heightened resonance in the observer’s action system and/or relatively accurate internal action simulation (Daprati et al. in Conscious Cogn 16:178–188, 2007). In Experiment 1, we attempted to replicate this finding in the auditory modality. Pianists were recorded playing musical excerpts three times and later judged whether pairs of recordings were the same take or different takes of the same excerpt. They were no better at distinguishing different takes of their own playing than those of other pianists’ playing, even though discrimination and self-recognition were well above chance. In Experiment 2, the same pianists tried to detect small local timing deviations that had been introduced artificially. They were better at detecting such deviations in their own performances than in those of another pianist, but only if the deviations were placed at points of a pre-existing self-other difference in local timing. In that case, pianists’ ability to predict their own characteristic action pattern did aid their perception of temporal irregularity. These results do not support the perceptual sharpening hypothesis of Daprati et al. in the musical domain, but they do suggest that pianists listening to performances generate idiosyncratic temporal expectations, probably through internal action simulation.

Keywords

Self-recognition Action simulation Motor resonance Expectancy Timing perception Music performance Forward models 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Max Planck Society and also by National Science Foundation grant BCS-0642506 to BHR. We are grateful to Kerstin Träger for recruiting and scheduling the participants, to Angela Schimming and Regine Steinke for running the experiments and analyzing the data, and to Emily Cross and Günther Knoblich for helpful comments on a draft of the manuscript. We also thank Paolo Viviani and an anonymous reviewer for their suggestions on improving the original manuscript.

References

  1. Calvo-Merino B, Glaser DE, Grèzes J, Passingham RE, Haggard P (2005) Action observation and acquired motor skills: an FMRI study with expert dancers. Cereb Cortex 15:1243–1249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Cross ES, de Hamilton AFC, Grafton ST (2006) Building a motor simulation de novo: observation of dance by dancers. Neuroimage 31:1257–1267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Daprati E, Wriessnegger S, Lacquaniti F (2007) Knowledge of one’s own kinematics improves perceptual discrimination. Conscious Cogn 16:178–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Flach R, Knoblich G, Prinz W (2004) Recognizing one’s own clapping: the role of temporal cues. Psychol Res 69:147–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Haslinger B, Erhard P, Altenmüller E, Schroeder U, Boecker H, Ceballos-Baumann AO (2005) Transmodal sensorimotor networks during action observation in professional pianists. J Cogn Neurosci 17:282–293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Iacoboni M, Koski LM, Brass M, Bekkering H, Woods RP, Dubeau M-C, Mazziotta JC, Rizzolatti G (2001) Reafferent copies of imitated actions in the right superior temporal cortex. Proc Nat Acad Sci 98:13995–13999Google Scholar
  7. Jeannerod M (2003a) Simulation of action as a unifying concept for motor cognition. In: Johnson-Frey SH (ed) Taking action: cognitive neuroscience perspectives on intentional acts. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 139–163Google Scholar
  8. Jeannerod M (2003b) The mechanism of self-recognition in humans. Behav Brain Res 142:1–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Keller PE, Knoblich G, Repp BH (2007) Pianists duet better when they play with themselves: on the possible role of action simulation in synchronization. Conscious Cogn 16:102–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Knoblich G, Flach R (2003) Action identity: evidence from self-recognition, prediction, and coordination. Conscious Cogn 12:620–632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Lahav A, Saltzman E, Schlaug G (2007) Action representation of sound: audiomotor recognition network while listening to newly acquired actions. J Neurosci 27:308–314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Loula F, Prasad S, Harber K, Shiffrar M (2005) Recognizing people from their movement. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:210–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Palmer C (1989) Mapping musical thought to musical performance. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 15:331–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Repp BH (1992) Diversity and commonality in music performance: an analysis of timing microstructure in Schumann’s “Träumerei”. J Acoust Soc Am 92:2546–2568CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Repp BH (1995) Expressive timing in Schumann’s “Träumerei”: an analysis of performances by graduate student pianists. J Acoust Soc Am 98:2413–2427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Repp BH (1998a) Variations on a theme by Chopin: relations between perception and production of deviations from isochrony in music. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24:791–811CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Repp BH (1998b) The detectability of local deviations from a typical expressive timing pattern. Music Percept 15:265–290Google Scholar
  18. Repp BH, Knoblich G (2004) Perceiving action identity: how pianists recognize their own performances. Psychol Sci 15:604–609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Rizzolatti G, Craighero L (2004) The mirror-neuron system. Annu Rev Neurosci 27:169–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Schütz-Bosbach S, Prinz W (2007a) Perceptual resonance: action-induced modulation of perception. Trends Cogn Sci 11:349–355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Schütz-Bosbach S, Prinz W (2007b) Prospective coding in event representation. Cogn Process 8:93–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sevdalis V, Keller PE (2009) Self-recognition in the perception of actions performed in synchrony with music. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1169:499–502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Viviani P (2002) Motor competence in the perception of dynamic events: a tutorial. In: Prinz W, Hommel B (eds) Attention and performance XIX: common mechanisms in perception and action. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 406–442Google Scholar
  24. Wilson M, Knoblich G (2005) The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychol Bull 131:460–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z (2000) Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 3:1212–1217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Wolpert DM, Doya K, Kawato M (2003) A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philos Trans R Soc B 358:593–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Haskins LaboratoriesNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain SciencesLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations