Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 79, Issue 2, pp 175–182 | Cite as

Listening to music primes space: pianists, but not novices, simulate heard actions

  • J. Eric T. TaylorEmail author
  • Jessica K. Witt
Original Article

Abstract

Musicians sometimes report twitching in their fingers or hands while listening to music. This anecdote could be indicative of a tendency for auditory-motor co-representation in musicians. Here, we describe two studies showing that pianists (Experiment 1), but not novices (Experiment 2) automatically generate spatial representations that correspond to learned musical actions while listening to music. Participants made one-handed movements to the left or right from a central location in response to visual stimuli while listening to task-irrelevant auditory stimuli, which were scales played on a piano. These task-irrelevant scales were either ascending (compatible with rightward movements) or descending (compatible with leftward movements). Pianists were faster to respond when the scale direction was compatible with the direction of response movement, whereas novices’ movements were unaffected by the scale. These results are in agreement with existing research on action–effect coupling in musicians, which draw heavily on common coding theory. In addition, these results show how intricate auditory stimuli (ascending or descending scales) evoke coarse, domain-general spatial representations.

Keywords

Spatial Representation Compatibility Effect Motor Process Common Code Musical Action 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Jessica K. Witt was supported by a Grant from the National Science Foundation (BCS-0957051).

References

  1. Altenmüller, E., & Schneider, S. (2009). Planning and performance. In S. Hallam, I. Cross & M. Thaut (Eds.), The Oxford Handbooks of Music Psychology (Ch. 31). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bangert, M., & Altenmuller, E. O. (2003). Mapping perception to action in piano practice: a longitudinal DC-EEG study. BMC Neuroscience, 4, 26.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Calvo-Merino, B., Glaser, D. E., Grezes, J., Passingham, R. E., & Haggard, P. (2005). Action observation and acquired motor skills: an fMRI study with expert dancers. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1243–1249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cross, E, Hamilton, A F deC, & Grafton, S T (2006). Building a motor simulation de novo: Observation of dance by dancers. NeuroImage, 31, 1257–1267.Google Scholar
  5. Drost, U., Rieger, M., Brass, M., Gunter, T., & Prinz, W. (2005a). Action-effect coupling in pianists. Psychological Research, 69, 233–241.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Drost, U., Rieger, M., Brass, M., Gunter, T., & Prinz, W. (2005b). When hearing turns into playing: Movement induction by auditory stimuli in pianists. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A, 58, 1376–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drost, U., Riger, M., & Prinz, W. (2007). Instrument specificity in experienced musicians. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 527–533.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Eitan, Z., & Granot, R. Y. (2006). How music moves: Musical parameters and listeners images of motion. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 221–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freedberg, D., & Gallese, V. (2007). Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 197–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Godøy, R. I., & Leman, M. (Eds.). (2010). Musical gestures: Sound, movement, and meaning. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Hallam, S., Cross, I., & Thaut, M. (Eds.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of music psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Haslinger, B., Erhard, P., Altenmüller, E., Schroeder, U., Boecker, H., & Ceballos-Baumann, A. O. (2005). Transmodal sensorimotor networks during action observation in professional pianists. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 282–293.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Haueisen, J., & Knosche, T. (2001). Involuntary motor activity in pianists evoked by music perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13, 786–792.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hodges, D. A. (2009). Bodily responses to music. In S. Hallam, I. Cross & M. Thaut (Eds.), The Oxford Handbooks of Music Psychology (Ch. 11). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hommel, B., Musseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Keller, P. E., Knoblich, G., & Repp, B. H. (2007). Pianists duet better when they play with themselves: on the possible role of action simulation in synchronization. Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 102–111.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kilner, J. M., Paulignan, Y., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2003). An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Current Biology, 13, 522–525.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lahav, A., Saltzman, E., & Schlaug, G. (2007). Action representation of sound: audiomotor recognition network while listening to newly acquired actions. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 308–314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Leder, H., Bär, Siegrun, & Topolinski, S. (2012). Covert painting simulations influence aesthetic appreciation of artworks. Psychological Science, 23, 1479–1481.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lidji, P., Kolinsky, R., Lochy, A., & Morais, J. (2007). Spatial associations for musical stimuli: a piano in the head? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1189.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lotze, M., Scheler, G., Tan, H.-R. M., Braun, C., & Birbaumer, N. (2003). The musician’s brain: functional imaging of amateurs and professionals during performance and imagery. NeuroImage, 20, 1817–1829.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of PhysiologyParis, 102, 59–70.Google Scholar
  23. Molnar-Szakacs, I., & Overy, K. (2006). Music and mirror neurons: From motion to ‘e’motion. SCAN, 1, 235–241.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Novembre, G., Ticini, L. F., Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Keller, P. E. (2013). Motor simulation and the coordination of self and other in real-time joint action. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience. Google Scholar
  25. Pratt, C. C. (1930). The spatial character of high and low tones. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Repp, B. H., & Knoblich, G. (2007). Action can affect auditory perception. Psychological Science, 18, 6–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Repp, B. H., & Knoblich, G. (2009). Performed or observed keyboard actions affects pianists’ judgments of relative pitch. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 2156–2170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Rusconi, E., Kwan, B., Giordano, B. L., Umilta, C., & Butterworth, B. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: the SMARC effect. Cognition, 99, 113–129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Seashore, C. E. (1967). Psychology of Music (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books (Original work published 1938).
  31. Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory SR compatibility: the effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(3), 300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Stewart, L., Walsh, V., & Frith, U. (2004). Reading music modifies spatial mapping in pianists. Perception and Psychophysics, 66, 183–195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Taylor, J. E. T., Witt, J. K., & Grimaldi, P. G. (2012). Uncovering the connection between artist and audience: viewing painted brushstrokes evokes corresponding action representations in the observer. Cognition, 125, 26–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 830–846.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Wagner, S., Winner, E., Cicchetti, D., & Gardner, H. (1981). “Metaphorical” mapping in human infants. Child Development, 52, 728–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wühr, P., & Müsseler, J. (2002). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Visual Cognition, 9, 421–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Colorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations