Orchestral or solo motifs :Which is easiest for recognition?

IRENE DELIEGEUnit of Research in Psychology of Music

Centre de Recherches Musicales de WallonieUniversity of Liège

MARC MELENUnit of Research in Psychology of Music

Centre de Recherches Musicales de WallonieUniversity of Liège

Abstract

BackgroundThe paper reports a study based on the model of sameness and difference (Deliège: 1987,

2001)which suggests that the mental representation of a piece of music is driven by a cue-abstractionmechanism. The cues are salient features picked up at the musical surface during listening whichenable the listener to compare sequences through a categorization process. An experiment on the

recognition of Wagnerian leitmotivs was reported by Deliège (1992) : subjects first memorized aparticular leitmotiv taken from the "Rheingold" opera and then were presented with an extract of thatopera, and they had to decide whether the relevant leitmotiv appeared or not in the extract.

AimsThe present study followed the same experimental design with a solo piece, the 5th Étude

d’exécution transcendante by Liszt, for piano. This material has been chosen specifically to study iforchestral or solo presentations do influence the recognition process.

MethodTen musicians and ten non-musicians took part in the study. The participants’ task was

first to listen to the piece. Then, they were asked to memorize one of the two motifs of the

piece by repeated listening. Finally, they listened once again to the piece and responded by keypress and release at, respectively, onset and offset of the detection of the motivic presentationsat real time while listening to the piece.

ResultsThe main results showed again as in the 1992 study that there was an effect of tuition,

with non-musicians needing more listenings than musicians. The number of listenings variedalso as a function of the motif, showing that the intrinsic organisation of the musical materialin the sequence has a strong influence on the performances.

ConclusionsThe present experiment replicated and extended the results of Deliège's (1992) study :

musicians and non-musicians performed quite similarly, even if musicians weregenerally better at deciding that a particular motif was present or not. As expected, nosignificant difference was observed regarding orchestral of solo presentations of the motif on

the efficiency of the cue abstraction in recognition.Topic areas : cue abstraction, sameness-difference perception, categorisation,

As a kind of preface, I will summarize the main points of the cue abstraction model (see

Deliège, 1995 for a review).The model is broadly related to general cognitive principles and considers music listening

as a schematization process, a reduction, or even a simplification of the objective content of the

piece, built on the basis of cues picked up during listening. According to Peirce, cues alwayscontain short but striking features linking them to what they call attention to, in order to facilitaterecognition.

For example, (see figure 1) as soon as you have heard once this phrase taken from aBeethoven Sonata, you will recognise the next presentations very quickly; it is no longer necessaryto listen to sequences in full length: only small features (which I call the cues) suffice, and as

stressed in my recent paper published in the last Music Perception special issue, the "front portions"are paramount in this respect (Deliège, 2001 a).

Having very often heard composers analysing their pieces before a performance, I have

sometimes suggested that what the listener distinguishes and isolates as cues in a piece might benothing else than what the composer himself has put in the piece in order to attract and captureattention, indicating together the directions he or she was taking in the general architecture of the

composition.To reach a complete definition of what might constitute a cue is quiet uneasy. But it is

important to notice that it depends on the cultural and historical origin of the music. For example,local structures, called "motives", whose identity is reinforced by repetitions or variations, appeared

in Western music only in the fifteenth century. Thus from this period until the end of tonal practice,cues are most likely to be provided by motivic elements. In more recent periods - and especially inother cultures - different types of musical elements may fulfill this role.

Several experimental procedures have been set up to test the cue abstraction hypothesisfrom different angles (see Deliège 1995 & Deliège, Mélen, 1997, for a review). The principles of

sameness and difference underly the model and are at the very centre of all the procedures.Furthermore a subdivision of all those procedures in two broad groups is essential according to thefact that participants are required to make explicitly or implicitly use of similarity and difference

perception to perform their tasks (Deliège, 2001b).

In 1992, a first study on Recognition of Wagnerian leitmotivs was carried out (Deliège,1992) which was based on EXPLICIT use of similarity perception.

Participants had to memorise ONE single target motif which was to be recognized later on

in a long sequence in which this target motif was played in different varied presentations. Theexperimenter, on the contrary, is concentrating his investigation on two or more motifs allowing tocompare the performances in relation with the internal qualities of the musical structures in the

recognition process.This study compared the results of musicians and non-musicians in recognition of three

different Leitmotifs in Das Reingold by Wagner. Three different stages were planned (see figure 2):

-an acquisition session during which participants listened as many times as they wished to theirtarget motif: the number of repetitions being recorded by the experimenter.

-a recognition trial with a small excerpt of the opera to make sure that participants had understoodthe instructions. After this trial, participants had the possibility to listen again to their target motifif they felt unsure to be successful in the experimental task.

-then in the experimental session itself, participants had to recognise their target motif in whatevervaried form in a 25 minutes excerpt of the opera.

This procedural frame has to be adapted to the conditions of the material selected since allmusical pieces obviously are not as long as an opera. It was the case for the purpose of this studyfor which we selected the Franz Liszt’s Etude d’exécution transcendente no.5, for piano, our aim

being to compare if solo musical cues are more efficient than orchestral ones in listening.The Liszt experiment is a replication and together an extension of the Wagner study.In the adapted procedure, participants first listened to the whole piece once attentively

without any task to perform.Second, they were presented one motif to memorise: the motif was repeated at will till they

obtained a self-confident satisfactory memorisation. The number of repeated listenings was

recorded by the experimenter.Third, they were played the whole piece again; but this time, they were requested to respond

each time when they perceived the memorised motif even in varied form, and they were requested

to respond by pressing the space key on a computer keyboard. They were instructed to respond asquick as possible, and to keep the key pressed as long as the motifs were continued. Furthermore,during the task, if they realised that they responded in a wrong place, they could cancel their

response by quickly hitting the tab key on the keyboard.Then, the whole procedure was repeated once again, with further listening to the motif formemorisation only if required by the participants.

The Liszt piece can be described through the following structural design (see figure 3). It isbuilt on a classical Rondo schema comprising 6 thematic sections (AABACA). The analysis here

developed considers the piece from two different perspectives. The notion of SECTION is ahorizontal reading of the score from the beginning to the end, while the notion of PERIOD suggestsa vertical subdivision of the sections in three periods. The four sections A (namely, sections I, II, IV

and VI) were regarded as target sections. Two different motifs, <Motif-A> and <Motif-B>, wereidentified. In total, there are eight presentations of Motif-A and four of Motif-B. Conversely, thetwo other sections III and V are considered to be "disruptive sections" since they introduce new

musical material capable of generating interferences in memory.

Listening to the piece

As in the Wagner experiment, we selected two groups of participants (10 musicians and 10non-musicians) for each motif.Three sets of analyses of the results were performed:

I - Number of repetitions to memorize the target motif

Let us compare the results for the Wagner and the Liszt experiments (see figure 4)The figure shows the mean number of repetitions requested during both acquisition sessions

for both pieces. The table shows that there was a main effect of tuition for both pieces : musicians

requiring less repetitions. There was also a main effect of the motif in both experiments : themusical structure strongly interfered with the number of repetitions; it was particularly the case forthe Vertrags motif in the Wagner experiment and for the Motif B in Liszt.

An effect of session was also observed : less repetitions were asked in the second session.

WAGNER LISZT

Tuition F(1,57)=8.64, p<..006 F(1,32)=6.583, p<..02

Motifs F(2,24)=7.77, p<..0003 F(1,32)=16.503, p<..0004

Session F(1,57)=14.562, p<..0002 F(1,32)=13.974, p<..0008InteractionTuition/ Session F(1,33)=3.25, p<..04 F<1

However, the interaction tuition by session was significant for Wagner (musicians almost neverasked to listen to the target motif again after the recognition trial), but not for Liszt.

II - Performances during the recognition session

For time reasons, we will now focus exclusively on the Liszt study.

A discrimination index was calculated according to the following rule

Analyses on performances : calculation of the discrimination index

Segments I IIFor <A> participants Target Non-target

Responses could be either hits omissions correct false

rejections alarms

Response quality correct responses correct rejections

Score 1 0 1 0

Discrimination index 1 1

Discrimination index:

For Target = correct responses / (correct responses + omissions)For Non-target = correct rejections / (correct rejections + false alarms

Responses that obtained [1] were all regarded as ‘good responses’ whether it was a correctresponse to target or a correct rejection of non-target.

Similarly, responses that obtained [0] were all regarded as ‘bad responses’ whether it was an

omission of target or a false alarm to non-target.The advantage of the discrimination index was to enable to disregard the difference of

response quality in the analysis.

The performances were analysed for Motif A and Motif B participants- first in the target sections 1, 2, 4, 6- second, in sections 3 and 5 : the so-called "disruptive sections"

Results for target sections will be described first.A four way analysis of variance on the main factors (Tuition, section, period, session) was

performed.

Performances in TARGET SECTIONS I II IV VIA Participants B Participants

Effect of Section F(3,54)= 2.06, p=11 NS F(3,54)=3.32, p<03Tukey Test : Section I > IV I >VI

Effect of Period F<1 NS F(2,36)= 6.41, p<.005Tukey Test : Period 1 = 2

2 > 3InteractionTuition/Period

F<1 NS F(2,36)= 5.59, p<.008Tukey Test :for M period 3 < 1, 3 < 2 ;for NM period 1 = 2= 3

There was no main effect of section for the A participants : section 2 was the lowest, but thedifference was not significant.

For motif B participants, a significant effect of section was observed : the worst

performances were recorded for sections 4 and 6, a situation that is probably a result of thedisruptive sections heard just before. The Tukey test has shown that the effect of section is given bythe strong difference between the performances collected for section 1 in relation to sections 4 and

6. Section 2, on the contrary, did not appear to be significantly different from the results of the othersections.

Similarly, no main effect of period was recorded for the A participants, but a strong effect

for the B participants, their results being at best for period 2, precisely the one in which they had torespond for their own target motif.

At this point, some remarks might be worth mentioning. First it appears that motif B

provided a less stable memory trace. In addition, B participants had less opportunities than Aparticipants at responding for their own target motif. For this reason probably, some false alarmswere recorded, Motif B participants responding sometimes for the Motif A.

Nevertheless, a more acute analysis of both motifs (see figure 5) might be suggested whichshows that the central pattern embedded in Motif A, was probably heard as a kind of "variation" ofMotif B in which case these responses might be considered as acceptable.

Finally, a significant interaction was observed between tuition and period for the B participants only: musicians performed very well in period 1 and 2, but not in period 3 ; while non-musiciansperformed well in all the periods.

Let us now describe the results for the disruptive sections 3 and 5

Performances in DISRUPTIVE SECTIONS III & VA Participants B Participants

Effect of Section F(1,18)= 10.371, p<.005

Effect of Tuition F(1,18)=4.46, p<.05

InteractionSession/Section

F(1,18)= 6.08, p<.03Tukey Test for section III : session 1=session 2

Section V : session 1< session2

For the A participants

A main effect of section was recorded : section 3 obtaining the best results.The interaction between session and section was significant: whereas no difference between

both sessions was observed for section III, session 1 was much lower than session 2 for section V.

For the B participantsThe factor tuition had a strong influence ; musicians performed much better than the non-

musicians.

III - ClusteringsThis analysis was performed to show the perceptual weight expressed by the cues efficiency.

Basically, it is a visualisation of the concentration of responses which is function of the number ofresponses and distribution of response time to erect mountains, centered at points where musicattracted a response. The height is proportional to the number of participants who made a response

around that location. In a word, it reflects the participant’s cognitive dynamism (see figure 6).By contrast with the Discrimination Index, exploited in the previous analyses, 'passive'

responses such as correct rejections and omissions are not considered in the clustering analysis.

This graph shows the results for the A participants. Most of the clusters are nicely fit in thetemporal space of the first pattern in each Motif-A presentation defining the strongest cue abstractedin the piece.

A notable point is that some clusters qualified as false alarms were time-locked to the"Pattern 1 like" presentations, i.e. portions of the musical material which ressemble the pattern 1. Itindicates that this cue attracted their attention even if presented in a different context.

As in the ANOVA analysis, the fluctuation of the cognitive weight between the Motif-Apresentations in periods 1 and 3 was also recognised here : the perceptual dynamism was triggeredby the pattern 1 cue correctly and constantly at more or less stable weight throughout the piece.

On the other hand, the graph of the B participants showed a more complicated dynamism(see figure 7). Despite their task was to respond to Motif-B, they gave perceptual weight totemporal spaces that belonged to Motif-A. Interestingly, it was happening at the same time as they

correctly recognised their target, Motif-B, a situation that was already pointed out in the previousANOVA analysis.

Conclusions

Both motifs in the Liszt piece shared a similar rhythmic organisation based on an anapeastmetric. One might therefore expect that the interference of the musical structure of the motifs on

memory, that was observed in the Wagner study, might be reduced. Yet we observed again an effectof the motif on the number of repetitions required during the acquisition sessions. In addition to thispoint, an effect of tuition already observed in the Wagner study, was again noticed here, a

conclusion which is not in agreement with Pollard-Gott (1983) who suggested that the cognitivetask underlying the memorization of musical structures is similar for naïve and expert people.

Another point that might be emphasized in the recognition performances is that participants

were most sensitive to the melodic contour of the patterns in memorisation as well as in therecognition tasks: the simple descending line of pattern 1 showing a stronger pertinence than theascending-descending contour of pattern 2. In addition, the high register generally employed for

Motif A, might have increased the perceptual pertinence of this cue, in comparison with Motif Bwhere the middle register predominates.

In fact, there was a sort of competition between the memory traces of the motifs : the motif

A, given its pertinence, its presence at the head of the sections and its frequent repetition comes tooccupy more and more space in participants’ memory, so that they erroneously recognize it ininappropriate places. This is particularly the case for the non-musicians and explains why variables

such as sessions or tuition had an effect only on the false alarms of the B participants.In relation to this remark, the B participants recorded weaker performances. Yet, one should

not forget that the B participants had 50% less opportunities to respond and therefore were probably

anxious to find any occurrence of their memorised cue. Similarly, in the Wagner study, participantsfelt impatient when they didn’t perceive any possible place to respond, which generated falsealarms (Deliège, 1992).

Finally, the comparison between the 2 approaches led us to observe that similar effects were

at work allowing to suggest that the role of cues in recognition is similar and as efficient in solothan orchestral presentations. (*)

(*) The authors are most thankful to Asuka Otsuka for her participation in some parts of the studyduring her Doctoral course at the University of Liège (2000-2001).

References

Deliège, I. (1992). Recognition of the Wagnerian Leitmotiv. Experimental Study based on anexcerpt from “Das Rheingold”. Musik Psychologie, 9, 25-54.

Deliège, I. (1995). Cue abstraction and schematization of the musical form. Scientific Contributionsto General Psychology, 14, 11-28.

Deliège, I. (2001a). Prototype effects in music listening: The notion of imprint. Music Perception18 (3), 371-407.

Deliège, I. (2001b). The role of similarity perception in real-time listening to music : Implicit andexplicit procedural aspects of the cue abstraction model. Paper presented at the 2001

Meetin of the SMPC, Kingston, August 9-11, 2001.

Deliège, I. & Mélen, M. (1997). Cue abstraction in the representation of musical form. In I. Deliège

& J. Sloboda (Eds) Perception and Cognition of Music (pp. 387-412). London.Psychology Press.

Pollard-Gott, L. (1983) Emergence of thematic concepts in repeated listening to music. CognitivePsychology, 15, 66-94.

Figure 1: Example of cue in the Beethoven Sonata op. 2 N° 2

Figure 2: Experiment setting and procedure

Experimenter

COMPUTER FORMUSIC OUTPUT ANDRESPONSE

RECORDING

SPEAKER

Participant

KEYBOARD

First recognition session with the real piece

Again acquisition session if requested by theparticipants

Second Recognition session with the real piece

Attentive listening to the piece

Acquisition session• target motif repeated at will for memorization

ADAPTEDPROCEDURE

ORIGINAL PROCEDURE

Acquisition session• target motif repeated

at will memorization

Recognition trial

• with an excerpt chosenelsewhere in the piece

Again acquisition session• if requested by the

participant

Recognition session• with the experimental

excerpt

Figure 3 : Structural design of the piece

Section I

Section II A

Section III B

Section IV A

Section V

Section VI A

Period 1

MA1

MA3

Disruptive

MA5

Disruptive

MA7

Period 2

MB1

MB2

MB3

Period 3

MA2

MA4

section

MA6

section

MA8

WagnerLiszt

Figure 4: Analyses on the number of repetitions in the acquisitionsessions - Overview.

Experimenter

Experiment setting andprocedure

2

2.8

1.8

3.4

2.6

0.8

2.3

1.5

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

Session 1Session 2

Figure 5: The two motifs of the Liszt piece.

P.1 P.1 P.2a P.1 P.1 P.2b

I II III IV V VI

Figure 6: Clusterings, A participants.

I II III IV V VIFigure 7: Clusterings, B participants