Previous research has shown that literacy influences some dimensions of the visual (or graphic) representation of temporal events, and that concepts of time vary across cultures. The present exploratory study extends the scope of this research by examining representations of brief rhythmic sequences by individuals living in literate and nonliterate societies. A total of 122 participants were recruited at five sites: British musicians in the UK; Japanese musicians familiar and unfamiliar with English and Western Standard Notation (WSN) in Tokyo and Kyoto in Japan; language/WSN literate Papua New Guinean highlanders in Port Moresby; and nonliterate BenaBena tribe members in Papua New Guinea. In the first study, participants listened to brief rhythmic sequences and were asked to represent these graphically on paper in any manner of their choosing. In the second study, participants matched the auditory stimuli with pre-constructed sets of marks varying in directionality (i.e. the direction in which they should be read to correspond with the auditory events). The responses of literate participants generally reflected the directionality of their acquired writing systems, while responses of nonliterate participants conveyed no clear preference for directionality. In both studies, responses of literate and nonliterate groups in Papua New Guinea were distinct from each other.
AdachiM. (1997). Japanese children’s use of linguistic symbols in depicting rhythm patterns. In PennycookB.Costa-GiomiE. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (pp. 413–418). Montreal, Quebec: McGill University.
AuhM-S.WalkerR. (1999). Compositional strategies and musical creativity when composing with staff notations versus graphic notations among Korean students. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 2–9.
BambergerJ. (1991). The mind behind the musical ear. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
BergenB. K.Chan LauT. T. (2012). Writing direction affects how people map space onto time. Frontiers in Cultural Psychology, 3, 109.
7.
BraswellG. S.RosengrenK. S. (2002). The role of handedness in graphic production: Interactions between biomechanical and cognitive factors in drawing development. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 581–599.
8.
BoroditskyL.FuhrmanO.McCormickK. (2011). Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently?Cognition, 118, 123–129.
9.
BrunerJ. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
CarelloC.AndersonK. L.Kunkler-PeckA. J. (1998). Perception of object length by sound. Psychological Science, 9, 211–214.
11.
ChanT. T.BergenB. (2005). Writing direction influences spatial cognition. In Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 412–417). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
DavidsonL.ScrippL. (1988). Young children’s musical representations: Windows on music cognition. In SlobodaJ. (Ed.), Generative processes in music (pp. 195–230). New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
DehaeneS.BossimiS.GirauxP. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396.
EitanZ.SchupakA.MarksL. E. (2008). Louder is higher: Cross-modal interaction of loudness change and vertical motion in speeded classification. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (pp. 1–10). Sapporo, Japan: Hokkaido University.
16.
EitanZ.TimmersR. (2010). Beethoven’s last piano sonata and those who follow crocodiles: Cross-domain mappings of auditory pitch in a musical context. Cognition, 114, 405–422.
17.
FuhrmanO.BoroditskyL. (2010). Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: Evidence from an implicit nonlinguistic task. Cognitive Science, 34, 1430–1451.
18.
GentnerD.ImaiM.BoroditskyL. (2002). As time goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space–time metaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27, 537–565.
19.
GjessingG. (1968). The social responsibility of the social scientist. Current Anthropology, 9, 397–402.
20.
GoodnowJ. (1977). Children drawing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
GoodyJ. (1977). The domestication of the savage mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
GromkoJ. E. (1994). Children’s invented notations as measures of musical understanding. Psychology of Music, 22, 136–147.
23.
ImotoY. (2006). Music, transnationalism and identity: Japanese western classical musicians abroad. Oxford.
24.
KüssnerM. B.Leech-WilkinsonD. (2014). Investigating the influence of musical training on cross-modal correspondences and sensorimotor skills in a real-time drawing paradigm. Psychology of Music, 42, 448–469.
25.
MaassA.RussoA. (2003). Directional bias in the mental representation of spatial events: Nature or culture?Psychological Science, 14, 296–301.
26.
MerriamA. (1964). The anthropology of music. Bloomington, IN: Northwestern University Press.
27.
NúñezR.CooperriderK. (2013). The tangle of space and time in human cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 220–229.
28.
Rashidi-RanjbarN.GoudarzvandM.JahangiriS.BruggerP.LoetscherT. (2014). No horizontal numerical mapping in a culture with mixed-reading habits. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 72.
29.
ReppB.BixbyK.ZhaoE. (2011, August). Does note spacing play any role in music reading?Poster session presented at the 11th CPMC, Rochester, New York.
30.
ReybrouckM.VerschaffelL.LauwerierS. (2009). Children’s graphical notations as representational tools for musical sense-making in a music-listening task. British Journal of Music Education, 26, 189–211.
31.
SadekA. A. M (1987). Visualisation of musical concepts. Council for Research in Music Education, 91, 149–154.
32.
Schmandt-BesseratD. (1992). How writing came about. Austin: University of Texas Press.
33.
ShakiS.FischerM. H.PetrusicW. M. (2009). Reading habits for both words and numbers contribute to the SNARC effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 328–331.
34.
StoneR. M. (1981). Toward a Kpelle conceptualization of music performance. Journal of African Folklore, 94, 188–206.
35.
TanS.-L. (2002). Beginners’ intuitions about musical notation. College Music Symposium, 42, 131–141.
36.
TanS.-LKellyM. (2004). Graphic representations of short musical compositions. Psychology of Music, 32, 191–212.
37.
TanS.-L.WakefieldE. M.JeffriesW. P. (2009). Musically untrained college students’ interpretations of musical notation: Sound, silence, loudness, duration, and temporal order. Psychology of Music, 37, 5–24.
UpitisR. (1992). Can I play you my song?Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
40.
VaidJ. (1995). Script directionality influences nonlinguistic performance: Evidence from Hindi and Urdu. In TaylorI.D. OlsonD. (Eds.), Scripts and literacy (pp. 295–310). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
41.
VaidJ.SinghM.SakhujaT.GuptaG. C. (2002). Stroke direction asymmetry in figure drawing influence of handedness and reading/writing habits. Brain and Cognition, 48, 597–602.
42.
van SommersP. (1984). Drawing and cognition: Descriptive and experimental studies of graphic production processes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
VerschaffelL.ReybrouckM.JanssensM.van DoorenW. (2009). Using graphical notations to assess children’s experiencing of simple and complex musical fragments. Psychology of Music, 38, 259–284.
44.
WalkerA. R. (1978). Perception and music notation. Psychology of Music, 6, 21–46.
45.
WalkerA. R. (1981). The presence of internalized images of musical sounds. Council for Research in Music Education, 66–67, 107–112.
46.
WalkerA. R. (1985). Mental imagery and musical concepts: Some evidence from the congenitally blind. Council for Research in Music Education, 85, 229–238.
47.
WalkerA. R. (1987a). Some differences between pitch perception by children of different cultural and musical backgrounds. Council for Research in Music Education, 91, 166–170.
48.
WalkerA. R. (1987b). The effects of culture, environment, age and musical training on choices of visual metaphors for sound. Perception and Psychophysics, 42, 491–502.
49.
ZebianS. (2005). Linkages between number concepts, spatial thinking, and directionality of writing: The SNARC effect and the REVERSE SNARC effect in English and Arabic monoliterates, biliterates, and illiterate Arabic speakers. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 5, 165–190.
50.
ZbikowskiL. (1998). Metaphor and music theory: Reflections from cognitive science. Music Theory Online, 4.
51.
ZwaanE. W. J. (1965). Links en rechts in waarneming en beleving [Left and right in visual perception as a function of the direction of writing]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands.
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.
