Skip to main content
Log in

Generalization of novel sensorimotor associations among pianists and non-pianists: more evidence that musical training effects are constrained

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the process of acquiring musical skills, such as playing the piano, we develop sensorimotor associations between motor movements and perception of pitch. Previous research suggests that these acquired associations are relatively inflexible and show limited generalizability to performance under novel conditions. The current study investigated whether piano training constrains the ability to generalize learning based on an unfamiliar (inverted) pitch mapping, using a transfer-of-training paradigm (Palmer and Meyer in Psychol Sci 11:63–68, 2000). Pianists and non-pianists learned a training melody by ear with normal (higher pitches to the right) or inverted (higher pitches to the left) pitch mapping. After training, participants completed a generalization test in which they listened to and then immediately reproduced four types of melodies that varied in their similarity to the melody used during training and were based on the same, a similar, an inverted, or a different pitch pattern. The feedback mapping during the generalization test matched training. Overall, pianists produced fewer errors and required fewer training trials than non-pianists. However, benefits of training were absent for pianists who trained with inverted feedback when they attempted to reproduce a melody with a different structure than the melody used for training. This suggests that piano experience may constrain one’s ability to generalize learning that is based on novel sensorimotor associations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is worth noting that non-musicians in Western cultures typically report explicit knowledge about the mapping of pitch to piano keys. Our focus is not on this kind of explicit awareness, but instead on more implicit features of sensorimotor associations.

  2. In Pfordresher & Chow (2019) only one successful trial was needed to progress. However, that study was limited by a high attrition rate (only 45% of recruited participants could complete the procedure). We reasoned that more repetitions of each progressive melody would facilitate memory consolidation. In support of this prediction, participant retention was much higher in this study (77%).

  3. The pattern of results reported here remained the same when Log-transforming these data to better approximate a normal distribution.

  4. The pattern of results reported here remained the same when analyzing the arc-sine square root transform of the data, yielding a closer approximation to the normal distribution.

References

  • Bangert, M., & Altenmüller, E. O. (2003). Mapping perception to action in piano practice: A longitudinal DC-EEG study. BMC Neuroscience, 4, 26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A., Ivry, R. B., & Keele, S. W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drost, U. C., Rieger, M., & Prinz, W. (2007). Instrument specificity in experienced musicians. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 527–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herholz, S. C., & Zatorre, R. J. (2012). Musical training as a framework for brain plasticity: Behavior, Function, and Structure. Neuron, 76, 486–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, P. E., & Koch, I. (2008). Action planning in sequential skills: Relations to music performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 275–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahav, A., Saltzman, E., & Schlaug, G. (2007). Action representation of sound: Audiomotor recognition network while listening to newly acquired actions. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 308–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacKay, D. G., & Bowman, R. W. J. (1969). On producing the meaning in sentences. The American Journal of Psychology, 82, 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, R. K., & Palmer, C. (2003). Temporal and motor transfer in music performance. Music Perception, 21, 81–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, J. (2002). A qualitative analysis of strategies employed in efficient and inefficient memorization. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 152, 74–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novembre, G., & Keller, P. E. (2014). A conceptual review on action-perception coupling in the musicians’ brain: what is it good for? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, C., & Meyer, R. K. (2000). Conceptual and motor learning in music performance. Psychological Science, 11, 63–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, C., & Pfordresher, P. Q. (2003). Incremental planning in sequence production. Psychological Review, 110, 683–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penhune, V. B. (2011). Sensitive periods in human development: Evidence from musical training. Cortex, 47, 1126–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfordresher, P. Q. (2019). Sound and action in music performance. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfordresher, P. Q., & Chow, K. (2019). A cost of musical training? Sensorimotor flexibility in musical sequence learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 967–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poggio, T., & Bizzi, E. (2004). Generalization in vision and motor control. Nature, 431, 768–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, J. B., Stevens, C. J., Jones, M. R., & Tillmann, B. (2018). Learning of pitch and time structures in an artificial grammar setting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 1201–1214.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rusconi, E., Kwan, B., Giordano, B. L., Umilta, C., & Butterworth, B. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: the SMARC effect. Cognition, 99, 113–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (1999). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, B. G., Stevens, C. J., Keller, P. E., & Tillmann, B. (2013). The implicit learning of metrical and nonmetrical temporal patterns. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 360–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shibata, K., Sasaki, Y., Bang, J. W., Walsh, E. G., Machizawa, M. G., Tamaki, M., . . . Watanabe, T. (2017). Overlearning hyperstabilizes a skill by rapidly making neurochemical processing inhibitory-dominant. Nature Neuroscience, 20, 470-475.

  • Taylor, J. E., & Witt, J. K. (2015). Listening to music primes space: pianists, but not novices, simulate heard actions. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 79, 175–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tillmann, B., Bharucha, J. J., & Bigand, E. (2000). Implicit learning of tonality: A self-organizing approach. Psychological Review, 107, 885–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zatorre, R. J., Chen, J. L., & Penhune, V. B. (2007). When the brain plays music: Auditory-motor interactions in music perception and production. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 547–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J. D., Susino, M., McPherson, G. E., & Schubert, E. (2020). The definition of a musician in music psychology: A literature review and the six-year rule. Psychology of Music, 48, 389–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finney, S. A. (2001). FTAP: A Linux-based program for tapping and music experiments. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 33, 65–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Q. Pfordresher.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pfordresher, P.Q., Honda, C., Greenspon, E. et al. Generalization of novel sensorimotor associations among pianists and non-pianists: more evidence that musical training effects are constrained. Psychological Research 85, 1934–1942 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01362-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01362-9

Navigation