In two experiments we examined the extent to which musicians identify discrepancies between their intentions and their playing during individual practice. In the first experiment, 60 musicians representing four levels of skill development practiced a familiar piece from their own repertoire for 5 min while being audio recorded. They then listened to their recorded practice and pressed a computer key to mark moments of discrepancy between what they had intended while practicing and what they heard on the recordings. The mean rates of key presses did not differ among the four participant groups, although there were large within-group variances. In the second experiment, 13 high school and 11 expert participants from Experiment 1 returned 2 years later and listened to their original recordings, this time marking moments of discrepancy between what would be their current intentions and what they heard on their 2-year-old recordings. High school participants marked significantly more discrepancies after 2 years than they had in Experiment 1, but the mean rate of key presses among experts did not increase between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. These results support the notion that the precision of performance goals and the acuity of perceptual discrimination are central features of musical expertise.
ChaffinR.ImrehG. (1997). “Pulling teeth and torture”: Musical memory and problem solving. Thinking & Reasoning, 3, 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/135467897394310
2.
ChaffinR.ImrehG. (2001). A comparison of practice and self-report as sources of information about the goals of expert practice. Psychology of Music, 29, 39–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735601291004
ChaffinR.ImrehG.LemieuxA. F.ChenC. (2003). “Seeing the big picture”: Piano practice as expert problem solving. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 465–490. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2003.20.4.465
5.
ChenJ.WoollacottM.MooreG. P. (2013). Stochastic aspects of motor behavior and their dependence on auditory feedback in experienced cellists. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 419. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00419
6.
ChenJ.WoollacottM. H.PologeS.MooreG. P. (2008). Pitch and space maps of skilled cellists: Accuracy, variability, and error correction. Experimental Brain Research, 188, 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-008-1380-2
7.
ColpritE. J. (2000). Observation and analysis of Suzuki string teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 206–221. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345394
DiedrichsenJ.WhiteO.NewmanD.LallyN. (2010). Use-dependent and error-based learning of motor behaviors. Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 5159–5166. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5406-09.2010
10.
DukeR. A. (2012). Their own best teachers: How we help and hinder the development of learners’ independence. Music Educators Journal, 99(2), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432112458956
11.
DukeR. A.CashC. D.AllenS. E. (2011). Focus of attention affects performance of motor skills in music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59, 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429410396093
12.
DukeR. A.SimmonsA. L.CashC. D. (2009). It’s not how much; it’s how: Characteristics of practice behavior and retention of performance skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 310–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429408328851
DyreL.TaborA.RingstedC.TolsgaardM. G. (2017). Imperfect practice makes perfect: Error management training improves transfer of learning. Medical Education, 51, 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13208
15.
GrusonL. M. (1988). Rehearsal skill and musical competence: Does practice make perfect? In SlobodaJ. A. (Ed.), Generative processes in music: The psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition. (pp. 91–112). Oxford University Press.
16.
HallamS. (2001). The development of expertise in young musicians: Strategy use, knowledge acquisition and individual diversity. Music Education Research, 3, 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800020029914
17.
HamiltonL. M.DukeR. A.SimmonsA. L.AllenS. E. (2019, March). Perception of timing, pitch, and loudness differences in artist-level performances: Differences among musicians with varied levels of expertise. Paper presented at the 23rd Meeting of the Clifford K. Madsen International Symposium on Research in Music Behavior, Estes Park, CO, United States.
18.
HeimbeckD.FreseM.SonnentagS.KeithN. (2003). Integrating errors into the training process: The Function of error management instructions and the role of goal orientation. Personnel Psychology, 56, 333–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00153.x
19.
HerzfeldD. J.ShadmehrR. (2014). Motor variability is not noise, but grist for the learning mill. Nature Neuroscience, 17, 149–150. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3633
20.
HuangV. S.ShadmehrR.DiedrichsenJ. (2008). Active learning: Learning a motor skill without a coach. Journal of Neurophysiology, 100, 879–887. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01095.2007
21.
KalmanR. E. (1960). A New approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Journal of Basic Engineering, 82(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3662552
22.
KatahiraK.AblaD.MasudaS.OkanoyaK. (2008). Feedback-based error monitoring processes during musical performance: An ERP study. Neuroscience Research, 61, 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2008.02.001
23.
Kruse-WeberS.ParncuttR. (2014). Error management for musicians: an interdisciplinary conceptual framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00777
MaidhofC.RiegerM.PrinzW.KoelschS. (2009). Nobody is perfect: ERP effects prior to performance errors in musicians indicate fast monitoring processes. PLOS ONE, 4(4), e5032. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005032
26.
MaynardL. (2006). The role of repetition in the practice sessions of artist-teachers and their students. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 167, 61–72.
27.
McPhersonG. E. (2005). From child to musician: skill development during the beginning stages of learning an instrument. Psychology of Music, 33, 5–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735605048012
RohwerD.PolkJ. (2006). Practice behaviors of eight-grade instrumental musicians. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 350–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242940605400407
31.
RuizM. H.JabuschH.-C.AltenmüllerE. (2009). Detecting wrong notes in advance: Neuronal correlates of error monitoring in pianists. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 2625–2639. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp021
32.
RuizM. H.StrübingF.JabuschH.-C.AltenmüllerE. (2011). EEG oscillatory patterns are associated with error prediction during music performance and are altered in musician’s dystonia. NeuroImage, 55, 1791–1803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.12.050
33.
SeidlerR. D.KwakY.FlingB. W.BernardJ. A. (2013). Neurocognitive mechanisms of error-based motor learning. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 782. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5465-6_3
34.
ShadmehrR.SmithM. A.KrakauerJ. W. (2010). Error correction, sensory prediction, and adaptation in motor control. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 33, 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-060909-153135
35.
WilliamonA.ValentineE.ValentineJ. (2002). Shifting the focus of attention between levels of musical structure. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 493–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440143000221
36.
WillsA. J.LavricA.CroftG. S.HodgsonT. L. (2007). Predictive learning, prediction errors, and attention: Evidence from event-related potentials and eye tracking. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 843–854. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.5.843
37.
WolpertD. M.GhahramaniZ. (2000). Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 1212–1217. https://doi.org/10.1038/81497
38.
WuH. G.MiyamotoY. R.CastroL. N. G.ÖlveczkyB. P.SmithM. A. (2014). Temporal structure of motor variability is dynamically regulated and predicts motor learning ability. Nature Neuroscience, 17, 312–321. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3616
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
