Advertisement

Cognitive Processing

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 211–218 | Cite as

Familiarity and preference for pitch probability profiles

  • Anja-Xiaoxing CuiEmail author
  • Meghan J. Collett
  • Niko F. Troje
  • Lola L. Cuddy
Short Report

Abstract

We investigated familiarity and preference judgments of participants toward a novel musical system. We exposed participants to tone sequences generated from a novel pitch probability profile. Afterward, we either asked participants to identify more familiar or we asked participants to identify preferred tone sequences in a two-alternative forced-choice task. The task paired a tone sequence generated from the pitch probability profile they had been exposed to and a tone sequence generated from another pitch probability profile at three levels of distinctiveness. We found that participants identified tone sequences as more familiar if they were generated from the same pitch probability profile which they had been exposed to. However, participants did not prefer these tone sequences. We interpret this relationship between familiarity and preference to be consistent with an inverted U-shaped relationship between knowledge and affect. The fact that participants identified tone sequences as even more familiar if they were generated from the more distinctive (caricatured) version of the pitch probability profile which they had been exposed to suggests that the statistical learning of the pitch probability profile is involved in gaining of musical knowledge.

Keywords

Music cognition Pitch probability profile Statistical learning Preference Familiarity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada to LLC. We would like to thank four anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Berlyne DE (1974) The new experimental aesthetics. In: Berlyne DE (ed) Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: steps towards an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation. Hemisphere Publishing Co., Washington, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  2. Cantor GN (1968) Children’s ‘‘like–dislike’’ ratings of familiarized and unfamiliarized visual stimuli. J Exp Child Psychol 6:651–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Huron (2006) Sweet anticipation. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Huron D, Veltman J (2006) A cognitive approach to medieval mode: evidence for an historical antecedent to the major/minor system. Empir Musicol Rev 1:33–55Google Scholar
  5. Krumhansl CL (1985) Perceiving tonal structure in music. Am Sci 73:371–378Google Scholar
  6. Krumhansl CL (1990) Cognitive foundations of musical pitch. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Krumhansl CL, Cuddy LL (2010) A theory of tonal hierarchies in music. In: Jones MR, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Music perception. Springer, New York, pp 51–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kuhn G, Dienes Z (2005) Implicit learning of nonlocal musical rules: implicitly learning more than chunks. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 31:1417–1432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Loui P, Wessel DL, Hudson Kam CL (2010) Humans rapidly learn grammatical structure in a new musical scale. Music Percept 27:327–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Martindale C, Moore K (1989) Relationship of musical preference to collative, ecological, and psychophysical variables. Music Percept 6:431–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Martindale C, Moore K, Borkum J (1990) Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for Berlyne’s psychobiological theory. Am J Psychol 105:53–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meyer LB (1956) Emotion and meaning in music. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Peretz I, Gaudreau D, Bonnel AM (1998) Exposure effects on music preference and recognition. Mem Cognit 26:884–902CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Schellenberg EG, Peretz I, Vieillard S (2008) Liking for happy-and sad-sounding music: effects of exposure. Cogn Emot 22:218–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Seamon JG, Williams PC, Crowley MJ, Kim IJ, Langer SA, Orne PJ, Wishengrad DL (1995) The mere exposure effect is based on implicit memory: effects of stimulus type, encoding conditions, and number of exposures on recognition and affect judgments. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 21:711–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Smith JD, Melara RJ (1990) Aesthetic preference and syntactic prototypicality in music: T is the gift to be simple. Cognition 34:279–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith NA, Schmuckler MA (2004) The perception of tonal structure through the differentiation and organization of pitches. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 30:268–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Szpunar KK, Schellenberg EG, Pliner P (2004) Liking and memory for musical stimuli as a function of exposure. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 30:370–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Temperley D (2007) Music and probability. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Tillmann B, Bharucha JJ, Bigand E (2000) Implicit learning of tonality: a self-organizing approach. Psychol Rev 107:885–913CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Zajonc RB (1968) Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J Pers Soc Psychol 9:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anja-Xiaoxing Cui
    • 1
    Email author
  • Meghan J. Collett
    • 1
  • Niko F. Troje
    • 1
  • Lola L. Cuddy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations