Volume 11, No. 2

Perception Special Research Interest Group

Newsletter Vol. 11, No. 2

Autumn 1995

Steven M. Demorest, Editor

**********************************************

Perceptions:

A Dialogue on Issues of Importance to Perception Researchers

For this issue, our E-Mail members were asked to discuss

Ecological Validity, "Ecological Validity concerns the extent to which

the results of an experiment can be generalized from the set of

environmental conditions created by the researcher to other environmental

conditions." (Borg & Gall, Educational Research, 1989, p. 650). The

questions were: 1. Should music perception researchers be concerned

with the ecological validity of their studies, that is, the extent to

which they can be generalized to real-world music listening? 2. If so,

how would such a concern best be addressed?

Thank you to all who responded. Here are selected responses from

some of the leading researchers in our field:

The quick answer is, of course, yes. But, alas, this is a complex matter

and that's good because it means that the work is important. I think the

best work in music perception is done when the link to real-world music

listening clearly exists. Because real-world music listening exists in a

very complex environment, however, we need to exercise some control on

our experimentation so that we have some assurance that what is seen is

attributable to one thing or another. The trade off between this control

and the real-world settings is a delicate balance and is, I think, the

most challenging aspect of empirical study.

===========

It seems a somewhat odd question. I believe there will always be basic

and applied research -- traditionally distinguished by what you may be

labeling "ecological validity." Basic research tends not to be very

concerned with it, and applied research does with each study to varying

degrees. In Perception, both are generally beneficial.

Clearly the greater the ecological validity of a study, the more

it can be generalized; however, many problems associated with research

methodology requires a compromise.

===========

Yes, I feel ecological validity should be a concern of perception

researchers. The thorny issue is "HOW?" Generally, folks have called

for more "musical" stimuli, and we know how difficult it is to discern

what is being perceived when complex stimuli are used. Nevertheless, I

am unwilling to say that we shouldn't keep trying. Some of the

multi-dimensional scaling studies in the past have been insightful. I

sense that using procedures of this kind to help us sort out some of the

underlying perceptions of musical works can give us a basis for studies

with more controlled stimuli.

===========

Yes, I believe music researchers must be concerned with this question. I

can understand that some research is basic; that is, it does not

generalize immediately to the "real world." However, it always (or

should always) lead to, or point to, subsequent research that can be

applied to real music listening.

Researchers need to make it clear in reports of their

research--how their study has implications for such-and-such music

listening conditions. Furthermore, they should present this in the

context of a theory--not just as a one-shot idea or as part of a set of

semi-random research projects!

===========

Studies in music perception pose a unique threat to ecological or

environmental validity; and often experimental control becomes that

threat. Do people listen to music in a booth with no distractions? Do

they listen to eight measures of music repeated 32 times while trying

detect where the retard begins? How do we control for confounding

variance, isolate our independent and dependant variables, and observe

the subjects' development without a certain degree of isolation from the

environment?

"Quantum mechanics is based on the development in isolation of an

observed system. Development in isolation refers to the isolation we

create by separating the region of preparation from the region of

measurement. We call this situation isolation, but in reality nothing is

completely isolated, except, perhaps, the universe as a whole. (What

would it be isolated from?)" (Zukov, 1979, The Dancing Wu Li Masters p. 72).

There is a good theoretical and philosophical discussion of this

issue in the Zukov book. Although one may criticize the "pop" writing

style, the book is well documented and does address several philosophical

issues relating to research ie. objectivity, qualitative vs. quantitative

research, and validity.

This is an issue that deserves attention. However, I believe

that we must be accepting of a lack of environmental validity if the

researcher is trying to establish experimental control. Likewise, the

same acceptance should apply when experimental control suffers because

the researcher is very concerned about environmental validity. These

issues lie in the integrity of the researcher and the scrutiny of the reader.

=============

My response to this is more "no, we should not be concerned" than "yes,

we should". Musical perception is very complex. We are still uncovering

how complex it is. If we don't artificially control some aspects of the

listening experience we will take longer to understand this complex

phenomenon than if we didn't. That being said, I also feel there is an

important need for music perception research under real conditions. The

baggage an individual brings to the music listening experience is a

wonderful mix of rational and irrational filters. This needs to be

explored also.

So my bottom line is that the perception issue is so large that we need

to attack it from both angles.

============

We must come to grips with the fact that there is basic research and

applied research in music perception as there is in most areas of

research. Basic research I perceive as focussing on perceptual elements

within highly controlled environments. These elements are purported to

have important ramifications for music listening in settings which most

people perceive music. Applied research, on the other hand, studies

perceptual elements in "real world" settings or as close to those as is

possible. Applied research provides the most "immediate" relevance to

normal music listening while basic research provides the most "immediate"

relevance to theoretical understanding. This is not to say that either

type does not have relevance to those areas of the other, they both have

relevance to normal music listening and theoretical understanding. It is

more a matter of weight. Both forms of research can influence each

other. The findings of basic research would influence applied research

and the findings of applied research would influence basic research. In

short, a circular model of influence results.

The most important thing that researches can do is to carefully

document the environmental aspects within their research

reports/articles. Frequently, there is a tremendous amount of effort

spent at documenting the instrumentation, but little effort documenting

the acoustical environment.

One could consider a multi-experiment research model where the

initial experiment(s) looks at the basic research issues within a highly

controlled laboratory environment followed by other experiment(s) which

look at the research topic within normal listening environments. Another

model could be the applied first, followed by basic, again followed by

applied. It seems to me that if those findings of basic research cannot

be found working within the normal listening environment then they are of

no relevance to understanding music perceptual processes.

===============

Ecological (or external) validity is one of the most critical issues

facing music psychology researchers. Experiments with high internal

validity (in an amusical context) are obviously important, but they don't

necessarily tell us about "real" musical experiences. Hundreds of

"boop-beep" studies have made important contributions, but they fall

short of explaining why we are attracted to Mozart, and may, in fact, be

misleading at times. For example, several experiments have reported that

subjects are unable to identify instrumental timbres when the attack (and

sometimes decay) transients are removed. These experiments were all done

with single tones. However, when similarly-prepared tones (i.e., without

the attacks) were used to construct a melody, subjects had no trouble

identifying timbres.

Listening to music (not even considering the more complex

situation of creating or performing music) in a concert setting, for

example, is an incredibly complex phenomenon. Besides all the musical

sounds, there are many others to attend to, such as rustling of programs,

coughing, and so on. In addition to audition, there are many others

sensory inputs competing for cognitive attention, including vision (not

limited to the performers on stage), smell (e.g., a nearby audience

member's perfume), touch (e.g., uncomfortable seats, pinching shoes,

etc.), as well as many internalized sensations (e.g., sleepiness,

awareness of temperature, distracting thoughts, etc.).

Recognizing the gap between "real" and "artificial" music

listening environments is one step, but unfortunately does not lead to

immediate solutions. Obviously, one cannot lower internal validity beyond

a certain point and still have a valid experiment. A difficult challenge

facing music psychologists can be stated simplistically: maintain high

internal validity while seeking ways to increase ecological validity.

Easier said than done, perhaps, but when this challenge has been met we

will be in a much stronger position to explicate the mysteries of the

musical experience.

******************************************

Ecological Validity:

Putting Researchers in Compromising Positions

From the Chair

I want to start by letting you know that I have chosen to keep

responses to the perceptions column anonymous. This decision was based

on the preference most of you expressed to keep the focus of the column

on the issues. I really enjoyed the responses to the questions in this

issue and find myself in agreement with them. While my commentary

benefits from the wisdom of all of our contributors, it should by no

means be thought of as the last word. Responses to my more outrageous or

ill-conceived notions could be printed in a "letters to the editor"

section in our newsletter (with expletives deleted of course), or we

could open a discussion group on the net. The whole purpose of the

"perceptions" column is to stimulate discussion.

The issue of basic vs applied research was raised by several

people as the primary determinant of ecological concerns, and rightly

so. However, we must still identify a "basic" level of musical stimulus

that would be considered valid for a study of music (as opposed to

"sound") perception. A stimulus consisting of a series of tones with

little or no recognizable musical context, might not be heard as

"music." Consequently, the subject's responses may be altered to such an

extent that they do not provide a valid test of a theory of music

perception. The importance of context has already been clearly

demonstrated in studies of memory for both language and music.

So the question becomes, where and how do we begin? As several

of our respondents pointed out, there is no ready-made solution, but

steps such as carefully describing the environment, and doing multiple

experiments may help bridge the gap between control and environment. The

issue of compromise was raised several times, and I believe that

compromise is both a necessary and acceptable part of research. In

experimental design we were always encouraged to begin by designing the

ideal study, and then compromise until it became feasible. By beginning

in this way, you always know where the compromises were made. I would

like to suggest several research design considerations that may serve as

a starting point for considerations of ecological validity*:

1. Starting with real music - Most musical perception studies must, by

necessity, restrict the context and form of the music they use in order

to interpret the responses. However, designs could begin with excerpts

from existing literature, or at least a greater consideration of the

properties of real music. Researchers must be aware of, and explicit

about, the compromises made in designing stimuli for their measures and

work to reduce those compromises.

2. A representative listening task - Improvements in measurement

technology and interactive environments hold the promise of more real

judgments tasks in perceptual measures. Researchers should not settle

for "easy to analyze" responses, but design tasks based in real-world

music listening.

3. A carefully defined "sampling frame" - Perceptual researchers should

seek to study populations beyond those conveniently located in the

University setting. In defining our populations, we should explore a

range of social/cultural variables that might affect perceptual responses.

4. Multi-dimensional theories - Theories of music perception should

attempt to account for the interaction of multiple dimensions in their

models of the perceptual process. Researchers have begun to look at the

relationship of pitch and rhythm in context, but the interactions of

dynamics, timbre and harmony may be equally important in defining what is

perceived. Likewise, any model of musical perception, tonal or rhythmic,

should be tested under closer approximations of real listening conditions

in order to identify the limits of its applicability to real music

listening. The profession can no longer be content with studying

isolated musical dimensions. If we don't ask the right questions, we

will never get the right answers.

* Excerpted from Demorest, S.M., (in press). Issues of ecological

validity for perceptual research in music. Psychomusicology, 13, (2).

*******************************************

Call for Nominations: Chair-Elect

We are beginning the nomination process for the next chair-elect

of the Perception SRIG. Kimberly Walls will take over as the new chair

at the Kansas City convention. As our new charter states, we will

present the nominees at the conference and vote for them by mail after

the conference. The nominations committee is:

Steven Demorest, Chair

Robert Cutietta

Don Hodges

We are soliciting nominees from the membership. Please send THREE copies

of a nomination letter and candidate vita to:

Perception SRIG

c/o Steven M. Demorest

University of Washington

School of Music, Box 353450

Seattle, WA 98195-3450

In order to encourage participation, you may also submit nominations via

email sent to Steve Demorest.

The committee will choose at least two candidates for the position of

chair-elect to be presented at the convention business meeting.

***********************************

Conference Session:

In Search of the Musical Ear

We are very fortunate to have David Butler from the Ohio State

University as our presenter for this year's conference session. Dr.

Butler is a Professor of Music Theory, and a leading researcher in

musical perception. His interdisciplinary work has been featured in such

publications as, Music Perception, Perception and Psychophysics, Journal

of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, and Journal

of Music Theory. His 1992 book, Musician's Guide to Perception and

Cognition is a wonderful introduction to the field of music psychology

geared toward the practicing musician.

His current research interest involves looking at the kinds of

skills emphasized in collegiate aural skills courses from an educational

standpoint. He is examining the relationship between the instructor's

stated objectives for the course and observations of what goes on in the

classroom. His ultimate goal is the identification of foundational

principles for a broad-based theory regarding the acquisition of

cognitive skills in music.

We are also fortunate to have the music education response to Dr.

Butler's remarks provided Dr. Rudolf Radocy from the University of

Kansas. More details of Dr. Butler's session will appear in the Winter

edition of the Newsletter.

***********************************

EMAIL LIST - Updated (This is for our electronic membership only)

[Note from Editor/Webmaster in 2006: Due to rampant abuse of email addresses, only the names have been retained in the list below to assist in minimizing the amount of spam and other unwanted email received by our members. Member email addresses were included in the original Newsletter.]

Asmus, Edward (U of Utah)

Barnes, Peter (U of Leeds)

Barrett, Janet R. (U of W-Whitewater)

Barry, Nancy (Auburn University)

Bartel, Lee (U of Toronto)

Bauer, Bill (Kent State University)

Blackman, Mary Dave (Weber St)

Brown, Rebekah (Indiana U)

Carlsen, James (U of Washington)

Coffman, Don (U of Iowa)

Coffman, Phillip (U of Minn-Duluth)

Colwell, Richard (New England Consv.)

Cooper, Nancy (Rutgers U)

Costa-Giomi, Eugenia (McGill U)

Cutietta, Robert (Kent State U)

Damer, Linda (Indiani State U)

Delzell, Judith (Ohio State U)

Demorest, Steven (U of Washington)

Duke, Robert A. (U of Texas-Austin)

Dura, Marian (Northwestern U)

Flohr, John (Texas Womans U)

Fung , Victor (U of Minnesota)

Gates, Terry (SUNY-Buffalo)

Goolsby, Thomas (U of Washington)

Mark O Gullickson (U of W-Milwaukee)

Gumm, Alan (Ithaca College)

Hair, Harriet (U of Georgia)

Hamann, Don (Kent State U)

Heuser, Frank (U of Oregon)

Hickey, Maud (Ithaca College)

Hodges, Don (UT-SanAntonio)

Hughes, Tom (Sydney Conservatory)

Humphreys, Jere (Arizona State U)

Imhoff, Jim (SUNY-Potsdam)

Jorgensen, Estelle (U of Indiana)

Kuhn, Terry (Kent State U)

Lee, Karen (Connecticut College)

Lim, Nam-Hee (U of Illinois)

Manthei, Mike (U of Minnesota)

May, William (U of North Texas)

McAllister, Peter (Kent State U)

Ogawa, Masafumi (Oita U)

Oliva, Jack (U of Florida)

Palmer, Anthony

Price, Harry (U of Alabama)

Rasmussen, Nancy (U of Wisconsin)

Roberts, Brian (Memorial U, Newf)

Schleuter, Stan (Indiana U)

Smith, William (Radford U.)

Taylor, Jack (Florida State U)

Thompson, Keith (Penn State U)

Tunks, Tom (Southern Methodist U)

Walls, Kim (UT-San Antonio)

Weaver, Molly (West Virginia U)

Webster, Peter (Northwestern U)

Wells, Barrie (Arizona State U)

York, Frank (James Cook U)

***********************************

ISME Research Sessions

Call for Papers

The Research Commission of the International Society for Music Education

invites (a) reports of recent research in music education for the

Sixteenth International Seminar to be held from July 13-19, 1996 in

Frascati, Italy, and (b) research posters for the XXII International

Conference of ISME to be held from July 21-27, 1996 in Amsterdam, Holland.

The purpose of these meetings is to provide discussion of results

and implications of recently completed research as well as its

methodology. Papers selected will normally reflect an experimental,

observational, descriptive, ethnographic, philosophical, or historical

research design. Papers selected will focus upon a clearly articulated

research question or hypothesis.

Twenty-five (25) papers will be selected from those submitted,

and the authors will be invited to participate in the seminar as guests

of the Commission (room and board for the week will be provided). Papers

will also be selected for the poster session as part of the Research

Commission's presentation at the XXII ISME International Conference in

Amsterdam. (Participants in the poster session will be expected to pay

for their own accommodation and board.)

Procedures for submitting papers are as follows:

1. Submit three copies of a paper reporting recently completed research

with contributes to the theory or practice of music education. The

implications of the research for music education should be stated clearly.

2. The papers must be submitted in English, since the formal sessions of

the seminar will be in English.

3. The paper must be complete, but must not exceed 2000 words excluding

references. No more than one table and one figure shall be included.

4. Three copies of an abstract (of no more than 200 words) must

accompany the paper.

5. If a multiple-author paper is selected, only one author will be invited.

6. Papers and abstracts must be typed and double spaced.

7. At the top of the first page of the paper and of the abstract, the

following information should be included:

a. Name

b. Complete mailing address, with FAX number and email address

if available.

c. ONE of the following statements:

(i)"This paper is submitted for consideration for the

Sixteenth International Research Seminar, Frascati, July 1996."

(ii) "This paper is submitted for consideration for the

poster session as part of the Research Commission's presentation at the

XXII ISME International Conference in Amsterdam, July, 1996."

(iii) "This paper is submitted for consideration for BOTH

the Sixteenth International Research Seminar, Frascati, and the poster session

at the XXII ISME International Conference, Amsterdam, July, 1996".

8. Submit a one-page curriculum vitae, including the highest academic

degree held, current teaching (or other) position, a bibliography of

research articles published since January 1992 and principal area(s) of

research interest.

9. Submit a statement specifying particulars of any earlier presentation

of the paper at a seminar or conference at national or international

levels. Submission of a paper signifies that the author agrees to comply

with the code of ethics governing duplicate publications of papers as

specified, for example, by the Journal of Research in Music Education..

10. Decisions concerning the acceptance of papers rests solely with the

Research Commission. Manuscripts submitted will not be returned. The

Commission reserves the right to publish invited papers and abstract.

11. Submitted materials not meeting these criteria will not be

considered by the Research Commission. Manuscripts submitted will not be

returned. The Commission reserves the right to publish invited papers

and abstracts.

12. Three copies of the 2000 word paper, the 200-word abstract and the

one-page curriculum vitae must be postmarked AIRMAIL no later than

November 1, 1995. All materials should be sent directly to the Research

Commission member in your geographic

region: United States

Dr. John Geringer,

School of Music,

University of Texas at Austin,

Austin, Texas

78712-1208, U.S.A.

****************************************

International Technological Directions in Music Education Conference

February 8-10, 1996