Volume 12, No. 1

Perception Special Research Interest Group

Newsletter Vol. 12, No. 1

Spring 1996

Kimberly C. Walls, Editor

Perceptions: A Dialogue on Issues of Importance to Perception Researchers

SRIG members were asked via E-Mail to comment upon their experiences with 

collaborative perception research projects. We were interested in 

finding out what it the role of collaboration in music perception 

research. The questions were as follows.

Consider perception research projects you have been involved in during 

the past. Among those of highest quality, were they principally 

individual or collaborative efforts? Were they interdisciplinary in 

nature? Please describe. Why do you think either individual or 

collaborative efforts were the most successful? If you had 

collaborations which were successful, what kind of collaborations were 

they, and what made them work? Do you wish to have your name listed in 

the summary article's by-line?

Following is a synthesis of the discussion. In some cases, the responses 

have been edited to preserve anonymity or to avoid redundancy.

All research projects are collaborative, in the general definition of the 

term. Even when doing a research project as the sole investigator, 

interacting with others--asking questions and having them critique my 

proposed research--always improves the quality of the research. In all 

research projects, the research design will be better if I discuss it 

with a trusted colleague. I also enjoy being a sounding board for other 

researchers because this type of discussion sharpens my own research 

skills.

Most of my research is collaborative, working with one or two other 

authors. This is a natural outgrowth of being in an institution with a 

large graduate program--and collaborating with both my current and 

graduated doctoral students. I find this to be very satisfactory--these 

coauthors and I work very well together, and we are able to be 

constructively critical of each other's work while doing a research 

project together.

Collaborative research often produces a better study even if the "work" 

is not equally distributed. One must take the time to get to know a 

collaborator well before initiating a project. If the collaboration 

turns out to be totally one-sided, the research will suffer and so will 

the professional relationship. It may take longer to complete a 

co-authored article, but in my experience, building on each participant's 

strengths result in a better product.

I have not had the opportunity for interdisciplinary work, but 

perception is a field that would most likely benefit from such 

combinations. I do find that our profession still holds some prejudice 

against multiauthor publications in terms of professional stature, 

especially for junior professors. This is curious given the considerable 

amount of collaborative work in the more established research disciplines 

such as the sciences, psychology, and education.

As for interdisciplinary projects, these have been quite successful. I 

have worked in research projects with collaborators from Dance, Theater, 

and the Visual Arts, and have produced several documented projects that 

are used in the public schools of Florida--under the "Arts" rubric. I 

also have collaborated with the Psychology Department (particularly the 

Cognitive Sciences Unit) here at Florida State University in research in 

expert performance in music. The Center for Music Research has a special 

connection with the Psychology Department--it's an interdisciplinary 

program: We share resources, students, and research.

The Institute for Music Research works closely with neuroscientists at 

the University of Texas Health Science Center Brain Imaging Center. The 

scientists at the Imaging Center not only contribute their 

instrumentation skills, but also their expertise in the workings of the 

brain--saving the time and expense of research that does not address 

current knowledge of psychophysiology. IMR music educators lend expertise 

that make the experiments more musically valid.

Several anonymous members participated in the discussion. The named 

participants include Jack Taylor and Kim Walls.

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

From the Chair

This is my last from the chair column as Dr. Kim Walls will take over the 

duties of chair at our April conference. I have truly enjoyed the four 

years I have spent in this position. Our SRIG has increased in size and 

activity, and our forays into email and the World Wide Web have made us a 

leader in MENC. The most memorable aspect of this job has been the 

opportunity to exchange ideas with other members of our group on issues 

important to perceptual research and music education. I hope that such 

discussions will continue and that perhaps we can devise a forum for all 

of us to communicate more regularly without going through a central 

clearinghouse. I am excited that Kim is taking over because her 

technological background will allow the SRIG to continue to lead the way 

in providing better service to its membership. Since this is my last 

chance to speak, I would like to mention a few ideas that I would like to 

see us consider in the years ahead.

1) Interdisciplinary Research - I was really pleased to see this brought 

up as the next "Perceptions" topic. I feel that connections to other 

disciplines will be crucial to our future success as some of the sessions 

at MENC already reflect. Continuing to invite people like Bamberger and 

Butler to our conferences, as well as having a strong presence at such 

gatherings as the International Conference on Music Perception and 

Cognition will enrich the work we do in music education.

2) Technology - While I am aware of the downside of the overwhelming 

amount of choices available through technology, I think that email and 

web connections will ultimately improve communication between groups of 

researchers that share common interests. I would like to see us share 

more work in progress and abstracts "hot off the presses" to stimulate 

new approaches and ideas.

3) Along those same lines, we might consider offering an interactive 

poster session at the next MENC. In such a session, presenters bring 

their computers with measurements tools, recordings or even video 

presented in an interactive format so that you can experience their data 

collection, review recorded raw data, and discuss challenges of 

perceptual measurement. The idea was broached for this conference, but 

space and equipment needs could not be worked out in time.

Whatever the future holds, I encourage all of us to take a more active 

role in the SRIG. There are very few limits to what we can do with this 

organization if we choose to. Best of luck to Kim, and Ill see you in 

Kansas City. Please note the time of our SRIG presentation on the master 

schedule provided, and check out a brief abstract of Butlers talk under 

SRIG Convention Session at our website:

http://weber.u.washington.edu/d62/demorest/PSRIG.html 

Steven Demorest, Chair

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

Reports from the Membership:

Abstracts of Music Perception Research, Completed or in Progress

Piano Performance from Memory: A PET Study

Peter Fox, Research Imaging Center, UTHSCSA

Justine Sergent, Montreal Neurologic Institute

Don Hodges, Institute for Music Research, UTSA

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to extend the understanding of the 

neural systems underlying piano performance.

Methods. Five, right-handed professional musicians participated. Three 

conditions were imaged: Bach, Scales, and Rest. In all conditions, eyes 

were closed and covered. PET imaging was performed with a 15-0 

water-bolus technique. PET and T1-weighted MR images were spatially 

normalized. Task-induced changes in regional blood flow were detected by 

Change Distribution Analysis. Response coordinates were interpreted in 

accordance with a standard brain atlas and confirmed with the group-mean MRI.

Results and Conclusions. Data were analyzed with a subtractive technique 

(e.g., activation from Rest subtracted from Scales, and Scales subtracted 

from Bach). Three primary conclusions were: (1) During the Bach 

condition, with Rest and Scales removed, activation was still primarily 

motor. This makes sense in that everything to be expressed in the music 

must be conveyed through muscle movements. (2) Bach activated 

right-lateralized somatic sensory and motor systems, while playing scales 

was almost purely left-lateralized. We have no good hypothesis to explain 

this finding. (3) By comparing Bach to Rest, it is clear that piano 

performance requires the switching on of certain neural circuits and 

switching off of others. It may be that the best artists are those who, 

among other things, are best able to selectively activate the appropriate 

neural circuitry.

A follow-up study on music cognition, supported by a $75,000 grant from 

NAMM is underway.

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

Two-Dimensional Continuous Digital Response Interface

It its continuing commitment to the development of technology for use in 

music research, the Center for Music Research at Florida State

University has recently completed a prototype Two-Dimensional Continuous 

Digital Response Interface (2D CRDI). The original CRDI (one dimension), 

now in use at several universities here and around the world, was 

developed at CMR as an interface between experimental subjects and 

computers (PC). Whether listening to music or viewing events, subjects 

can move a mouse, dial, or slider in real-time response to designated 

variables in the stimuli. These motions are digitized, then formatted 

into columns of data by the computer. The new 2D CRDI adds a second 

dimension, and is designed for use with a box outline presented on the 

screen. Subjects can move a cursor (with a mouse) within this box as 

music is being heard, and the motions are recognized as data points on 

two dimensions (X-Y coordinates). The 2D CRDI is about to be tested in 

an experiment in music affect (emotions), where polar terms are used for 

both the X and Y coordinates (e.g., X axis = active/inactive, Y axis = 

happy/sad). The resolution of the 2D CRDI is two data points/second, but 

its inventor and developer, CMR staff member Eitaro Kawaguchi, states 

that higher resolution may be possible.

Mr. Kawaguchi also is developing a graphics tablet for real-time input. 

The tablet is "ArtZ II" by Wacom. The pen itself offers the potential of 

five response dimensions to the researcher: X and Y coordinates, depth 

(pressure on the pad), angle (angle of the pen), and "eraser" (opposite 

end of the pen). The pen has 256 pressure levels and 2540 lines per inch 

resolution. Our research has demonstrated that subjects can easily 

respond to music in two dimensions, and there is evidence that music 

responses can be quantified in three, and perhaps more dimensions.

Jack Taylor

See our home page at http://www.music.fsu.edu/cmr.html

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

REMINDER

Call for Nominations: Chair-Elect

There is still time to send your nominations for Perception SRIG 

Chair-Elect. You may send nominations (a nomination letter and candidate 

vita required) via e-mail to Steve Demorest.

The nominations committee is: Steven Demorest, Chair Robert Cutietta Don 

Hodges

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

CALL FOR PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

The Association for Technology in Music Instruction (ATMI)

The Conference Committee of ATMI invites the submission of proposals for 

papers, presentations, workshops, panels, and software demonstrations to 

be presented at the 1996 ATMI Conference. This meeting will be held 

jointly with the College Music Society and will take place OCTOBER 24-27 

in Atlanta, Georgia.

PAPERS, PRESENTATIONS, and WORKSHOPS:

Topics dealing with all aspects of technology in music instruction are 

welcome. Especially encouraged are papers, presentations, and workshops 

that focus on the topics listed below.

1) The Internet and Its Use in Teaching, Especially the

Incorporation of Newer Technologies (e.g., ShockWave and Java)

2) Interactive Distance Learning

3) Multimedia: Integrating Video, Graphics, Text, and Music

4) Multimedia: Using Affordable Software to Create Effective

Instruction

5) Research on the Effectiveness of Music Technology

(contributions in this topic are especially welcome)

6) Using Technology In the Music Studio (Music Performance)

PANEL DISCUSSIONS/PRESENTATIONS:

The Conference Committee is extremely interested in informative,

insightful panels that deal with real-world issues--and that will

stimulate input from the conference attendees. The Committee

seeks proposals for the following specific areas:

1) Technology Standards for Music Degrees

2) Multimedia Training and Degree Programs

3) Attitudes Toward Technology, Including Issues Such as the

"Learning Curve Problem," Motivation, etc.

4) How to Develop Budgets, Facilities, and Administrative Support

5) Developing Ties with Music Industry

6) Profiles of Technology Curricula and/or Research in Music

Units (College Music Schools/Departments, Public/Private

Schools and School Districts)

SOFTWARE DEMONSTRATIONS:

Also encouraged are presentations that focus on newly authored software 

from all aspects of the music curriculum. Especially welcomed are 

programs that take an innovative approach to music teaching and learning.

Proposals should include a complete description of the software's design 

and its use in the teaching environment.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES: All proposals will be submitted for blind review 

and authors are encouraged to exclude references to individuals or 

institutions that might compromise this process. Proposals for papers, 

presentations, and workshops should include clear statements of 

theoretical background, methodology, and conclusions. Panel proposals 

should include a complete description of the content to be covered, 

panelists and their affiliation, and confirmation of panelists 

participation. Proposals should be no more than 2,000 words and contain 

a detailed listing of required equipment and operating system(s).

Deadline for submission is MAY 15, 1996. E-mail, regular mail, and fax 

submissions will be acknowledged upon receipt. Individuals whose 

proposals are accepted must be members of ATMI to present at the 1996 

conference.

Send four copies of each proposal to:

Jack Taylor

ATMI Program Chair

214 KMU

Center for Music Research

Florida State University

Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2098

Phone (voice): 904-644-5786

FAX: 904-644-6100

E-mail submissions are especially encouraged.

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

INTERNET RESOURCES

Perception SRIG Home Page

(includes P-SRIG email list and newsletter archives)

http://weber.u.washington.edu/d62/demorest/PSRIG.html

Conference Announcements and Requests for Research Information/Assistance

(updated weekly)

http://imr.utsa.edu/~kwalls/announcements/maillist.html

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

From the Editor

The Perception Special Research Interest Group Newsletter, World Wide Web 

Home Page, and E-mail Directory are for you! Please send any 

contributions to these efforts to me via email. Suggestions for 

improvement are also welcome!

Hope to see you in Kansas City...

Kimberly C. Walls, Editor

Kim Walls 

Institute for Music Research

University of Texas at San Antonio

(210) 691-5321

http://music.utsa.edu/Faculty/kwalls.html