Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 54, Issue 2, pp 51–59 | Cite as

Asymmetry of perceived key movement in chorale sequences: Converging evidence from a probe-tone analysis

  • Lola L. Cuddy
  • William F. Thompson
Article

Summary

In a probe-tone experiment, two groups of listeners — one trained, the other untrained, in traditional music theory — rated the goodness of fit of each of the 12 notes of the chromatic scale to four-voice harmonic sequences. Sequences were 12 simplified excerpts from Bach chorales, 4 nonmodulating, and 8 modulating. Modulations occurred either one or two steps in either the clockwise or the counterclockwise direction on the cycle of fifths. A consistent pattern of probe-tone ratings was obtained for each sequence, with no significant differences between listener groups. Two methods of analysis (Fourier analysis and regression analysis) revealed a directional asymmetry in the perceived key movement conveyed by modulating sequences. For a given modulation distance, modulations in the counterclockwise direction effected a clearer shift in tonal organization toward the final key than did clockwise modulations. The nature of the directional asymmetry was consistent with results reported for identification and rating of key change in the sequences (Thompson & Cuddy, 1989 a). Further, according to the multiple-regression analysis, probe-tone ratings did not merely reflect the distribution of tones in the sequence. Rather, ratings were sensitive to the temporal structure of the tonal organization in the sequence.

Keywords

Fourier Analysis Consistent Pattern Temporal Structure Counterclockwise Direction Clear Shift 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agmon, E. (1990). Music theory as cognitive science: Some conceptual and methodological issues.Music Perception, 7, 285–308.Google Scholar
  2. Bharucha, J. J. (1984). Event hierarchies, tonal hierarchies, and assimilation: A reply to Deutsch and Dowling.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 421–425.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, D. (1989). Describing the perception of tonality in music: A critique of the tonal hierarchy theory and a proposal for a theory of intervallic rivalry.Music Perception, 6, 219–242.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, D. (1990). Response to Carol Krumhansl.Music Perception, 7, 335–338.Google Scholar
  5. Castellano, M. A., Bharucha, J. J., & Krumhansl, C. L. (1984). Tonal hierarchies in the music of North India.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 394–412.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, A. J. (1991). Tonality and perception: Musical scales primed by excerpts fromThe Well-Tempered Clavier of J. S. Bach.Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 53, 305–314.Google Scholar
  7. Cuddy, L. L., & Badertscher, B. (1987). Recovery of the tonal hierarchy: Some comparisons across age and levels of musical experience.Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 609–620.Google Scholar
  8. Hopkins, A. (1979).Understanding Music. London: Dent.Google Scholar
  9. Jenkins, G. M., & Watts, D. G. (1968).Spectral analysis and its applications. San Francisco: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
  10. Jordan, D. S. (1987). Influence of the diatonic tonal hierarchy at microtonal intervals.Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 482–488.Google Scholar
  11. Jordan, D. S., & Shepard, R. N. (1987). Tonal schemas: Evidence obtained by probing distorted musical scales.Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 489–504.Google Scholar
  12. Kessler, E. J., Hansen, C., & Shepard, R. N. (1984). Tonal schemata in the perception of music in Bali and the West.Music Perception, 2, 131–165.Google Scholar
  13. Krumhansl, C. L. (1982). A quantitative description of musical key structure. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Mathematical Psychology, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  14. Krumhansl, C. L. (1983). Perceptual structures for tonal music.Music Perception, 1, 28–62.Google Scholar
  15. Krumhansl, C. L. (1987). Tonal and harmonic hierarchies. In J. Sundberg (Ed.),Harmony and tonality (pp. 13–32). Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Music.Google Scholar
  16. Krumhansl, C. L. (1990a).Cognitive Foundations of Musical Pitch. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Krumhansl, C. L. (1990 b). Tonal hierarchies and rare intervals in music cognition.Music Perception, 7, 309–324.Google Scholar
  18. Krumhansl, C. L. (1991). Music psychology: tonal structures in perception and memory.Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 277–303.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Krumhansl, C. L., & Kessler, E. J. (1982). Tracing the dynamic changes in perceived tonal organization in a spatial representation of musical keys.Psychological Review, 89, 344–368.Google Scholar
  20. Krumhansl, C. L., & Schmuckler, M. A. (1986a). The Petroushka chord.Music Perception, 4, 153–184.Google Scholar
  21. Krumhansl, C. L., & Schmuckler, M. A. (1986b). Key-finding in music: An algorithm with applications to Bach, Shostakovitch, and Chopin. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University, Department of Psychology, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  22. Krumhansl, C. L., & Shepard, R. N. (1979). Quantification of the hierarchy of tonal functions within a diatonic context.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 5, 579–594.Google Scholar
  23. Lerdahl, F. (1988). Tonal pitch space. Music Perception,5, 315–349.Google Scholar
  24. Leuchter, E. (1968).J. S. Bach (386 Chorales). Buenos Aires: Recordi Americana.Google Scholar
  25. Oram, N. P. (1989). The responsiveness of Western adult listeners to pitch distributional information in diatonic and nondiatonic melodic sequences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queen's University at Kingston, Canada.Google Scholar
  26. Oram, N. P., & Cuddy, L. L. (1989). Perception of pitch structure in pure-tone melodic sequences.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85(S), N20.Google Scholar
  27. Parncutt, R. (1989).Harmony: A psychoacoustical approach. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Piston. W. (1978).Harmony (4th ed., revised and expanded by M. DeVoto). New York: Norton. (Originally published, 1941).Google Scholar
  29. Rosen, C. (1971).The classical style. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  30. Schenker, H. (1954).Harmony (O. Jones, Ed. and E. M.Borgese, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT press (originally published 1906).Google Scholar
  31. Schenker, H. (1979).Free Composition (O. Jones, Ed. and Trans.). New York: Longman (originally published 1935).Google Scholar
  32. Schmuckler, M. A. (1989). Expectation in music: Investigation of melodic and harmonic processes.Music Perception, 7, 109–150.Google Scholar
  33. Serafine, M. L. (1983). Cognition in music.Cognition, 14, 119–183.Google Scholar
  34. Thompson, W. F. (1986). Judgements of Key Change in Bach Chorale Excerpts: An Investigation of the Sensitivity to Keys, Chords, & Voicing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queen's University at Kingston, Canada.Google Scholar
  35. Thompson, W. F. (1988). The perception of tonal clarity: How much can be explained by a simple acoustic model? Paper presented to the Canadian Acoustical Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  36. Thompson, W. F., & Cuddy, L. L. (1989 a). Sensitivity to key change in chorale sequences: A comparison of single voices and four-voice harmony.Music Perception, 7, 151–168.Google Scholar
  37. Thompson, W. F., & Cuddy, L. L. (1989 b). The perception of tonality in four-part harmony and individual voices.Proceedings of the First International Congress on Music Perception and Cognition, (pp. 133–136). Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
  38. Thompson, W. F. & Parncutt, R. (1988). Using a memory-fade model to track the movement of musical keys. Paper presented to the International Congress of Psychology, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  39. Wens, D. (1983). A theory of scale references. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Music, Princeton University, Princeton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lola L. Cuddy
    • 1
  • William F. Thompson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyQueen's University at KingstonOntarioCanada
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, Atkinson CollegeYork UniversityNorth York, OntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations