Past research has shown that when discrete responses are associated with a perceptual goal, performers may have difficulty detecting stimuli that are commensurate with that goal. Three experiments are reported here that test whether such effects extend to sequence production. In Experiment 1, participants performed 8-note melodies repeatedly, and on each trial a single tone could be altered with respect to its pitch and/or synchrony with actions. Results suggested a selective deficit of detection when feedback pitch was unchanged and the event was slightly delayed. Experiment 2 showed that this “deafness” to feedback is limited to rhythmic motor tasks that require sequencing, in that similar effects did not emerge when participants produced pitch sequences by tapping a single key repeatedly. A third experiment demonstrated similar results to Experiment 1 when the mapping of keys to pitches on the keyboard was reversed. Taken together, results suggest a selective deafness to response-congruent delayed feedback, consistent with the idea that performers suppress previously planned events during production.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Early asynchronies were complicated to implement. For early asynchronies that were associated with the correct (unaltered) pitch, FTAP generated normal auditory feedback for the keypress that preceded the probe position; in addition, that keypress generated a second delayed feedback event that had a MIDI pitch matching the pitch associated with the probe position. Then, when the participant pressed the key at the actual probe position, no feedback would be presented. The delay preceding the probe was set to be 66 % of the predicted IOI. Thus, participants experienced the illusion that the tone they produced occurred early (by 33 % of the IOI preceding the probe position), when in fact the tone was associated with delayed feedback, with altered pitch, from the previous keypress. A similar procedure was followed for early asynchronies combined with an altered pitch, only in such cases the pitch of delayed feedback from the preceding keypress was shifted up or down relative to the pitch intended for the probe position.
Chase, R. A. (1965). An information-flow model of the organization of motor activity. I: Transduction, transmission and central control of sensory information. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 140, 239–251.
Couchman, J. J., Beasley, R., & Pfordresher, P. Q. (2012). Auditory feedback, self-attribution, and the experience of agency in sequence production. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 186–203.
Dell, G. S., Burger, L. K., & Svec, W. R. (1997). Language production and serial order: A functional analysis and a model. Psychological Review, 104, 123–147.
Ellis, R. J., & Jones, M. R. (2009). The Role of Accent Salience and Joint Accent Structure in Meter Perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 264–280.
Finney, S. A. (2001). FTAP: A Linux-based program for tapping and music experiments. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 33, 65–72.
Furuya, S., & Soechting, J. (2010). Role of auditory feedback in the control of successive keystrokes during piano playing. Experimental Brain Research, 204, 223–237.
Guenther, F. H. (1995). Speech sound acquisition, coarticulation, and rate effects in a neural network model of speech production. Psychological Review, 102, 594–621.
Hébert, S., & Peretz, I. (1997). Recognition of music in long-term memory: Are melodic and temporal patterns equal partners? Memory & cognition, 25, 518–533.
Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research, 73, 512–526.
Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 849–937.
Howell, P. (2001). A model of timing interference to speech control in normal and altered listening conditions applied to the treatment of stuttering. In B. Maassen, W. Hulsijn, R. Kent, H. F. M. Peters & P. H. M. M. van-Lieshout (Eds.), Speech motor control in normal and disordered speech (pp. 291–294). Nijmegen: Uttgeverij Vantilt.
Howell, P., Powell, D. J., & Khan, I. (1983). Amplitude contour of the delayed signal and interference in delayed auditory feedback tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 772–784.
Hubbard, T. (2005). Representational momentum and related displacements in spatial memory: A review of the findings. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 822–851.
Jäncke, L. (2002). The case of a left-handed pianists playing a reversed keyboard: A challenge for the neuroscience of music. NeuroReport, 13, 1579–1583.
Johnston, H. M., & Jones, M. R. (2006). Higher order pattern structure influences auditory representational momentum. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 2–17.
Jones, M. R. (1976). Time, our lost dimension—Toward a new theory of perception, attention, and memory. Psychological Review, 83, 323–355.
Jones, M. R., Johnston, H. M., & Puente, J. (2006). Effects of auditory pattern structure on anticipatory and reactive attending. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 59–96.
Jordan, M. I., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1992). Forward models: Supervised learning with a distal teacher. Cognitive Science, 16, 307–354.
Kawato, M. (1999). Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning. Current Opinion in Biology, 9, 718–727.
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201–258.
Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Krumhansl, C. L. (2000). Rhythm and pitch in music cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 159–179.
Large, E. W. (1993). Dynamic programming for the analysis of serial behaviors. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25, 238–241.
Large, E. W., & Jones, M. R. (1999). The dynamics of attending: How people track time-varying events. Psychological Review, 106, 119–159.
Lashley, K. (1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In L. A. Jeffress (Ed.), Cerebral Mechanisms in Behavior (pp. 112–136). New York: Wiley.
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, 1189–1207.
MacKay, D. G. (1987). The organization of perception and action: A theory for language and other cognitive skills. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Maidhof, C., Vavatzanidis, N., Prinz, W., Rieger, M., & Koelsch, S. (2010). Processing Expectancy Violations during Music Performance and Perception: An ERP Study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2401–2413.
Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997a). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 861–872.
Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997b). Detecting and identifying response-compatible stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 125–129.
Palmer, C., & Pfordresher, P. Q. (2003). Incremental planning in sequence production. Psychological Review, 110, 683–712.
Palmer, C., & van de Sande, C. (1993). Units of knowledge in music performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 457–470.
Palmer, C., & van de Sande, C. (1995). Range of planning in music performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 947–962.
Pfordresher, P. Q. (2003). Auditory feedback in music performance: Evidence for a dissociation of sequencing and timing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 949–964.
Pfordresher, P. Q. (2005). Auditory feedback in music performance: The role of melodic structure and musical skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1331–1345.
Pfordresher, P. Q. (2006). Coordination of perception and action in music performance. Advances in Cognitive Psychology. Special Issue: Music performance, 2, 183–198.
Pfordresher, P. Q. (2012). Musical training and the role of auditory feedback during performance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1252, 171–178.
Pfordresher, P. Q., & Dalla-Bella, S. (2011). Delayed auditory feedback and movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 566–579.
Pfordresher, P. Q., & Kulpa, J. D. (2011). The dynamics of disruption from altered auditory feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 949–967.
Pfordresher, P. Q., & Palmer, C. (2006). Effects of hearing the past, present, or future during music performance. Perception and Psychophysics, 68, 362–376.
Pfordresher, P. Q., Palmer, C., & Jungers, M. K. (2007). Speed, Accuracy, and Serial Order in Sequence Production. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 31, 1–36.
Prince, J. B., & Pfordresher, P. Q. (2012). The role of pitch and temporal diversity in the perception and production of musical sequence. Acta Psychologica, 141, 184–198.
Prince, J. B., Schmuckler, M. A., & Thompson, W. F. (2009a). The effect of task and pitch structure on pitch-time interactions in music. Memory and Cognition, 37, 368–381.
Prince, J. B., Thompson, W. F., & Schmuckler, M. A. (2009b). Pitch and time, tonality and meter: How do musical dimensions combine? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1598–1617.
Rusconi, E., Kwan, B., Giordano, B. L., Umilta, C., & Butterworth, B. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: the SMARC effect. Cognition, 99, 113–129.
Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 943–974.
Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. R. (1999). High level processing scope in spoken sentence production. Cognition, 73.
Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (1999). Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25.
Vousden, J. I., & Brown, G. D. A. (1998). To repeat or not to repeat: The time course of response suppression in sequential behaviour. In J. A. Bullinaria, D. W. Glasspool, & G. Houghton (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Neural Computation and Psychology Workshop: Connectionist Representations. London: Springer.
Vousden, J. I., Brown, G. D. A., & Harley, T. A. (2000). Serial Control of Phonology in Speech Production: A Hierarchical Model. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 101–175.
Wheeldon, L. R., Meyer, A. S., & Smith, M. (2002). Incrementality. In R. Goldstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science. London: Macmillan.
Wolpert, D. M. (1997). Computational approaches to motor control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 209–216.
Peter Q. Pfordresher, Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, the State University of New York. This research was sponsored in part by NSF grants BCS-0344892 and BCS-0642592. I am grateful for the help of Lilly Flores (UTSA) and Thomas Beall-Schwab (UB) who assisted with data collection. I am also grateful for the constructive comments of Shinichi Furuya and an anonymous reviewer on an earlier version of this manuscript.
About this article
Cite this article
Pfordresher, P.Q. “Deafness” effects in detecting alterations to auditory feedback during sequence production. Psychological Research 78, 96–112 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0477-9
- Sequence Production
- Probe Position
- Auditory Feedback
- Musical Training
- Feedback Timing