Western music improvisers learn to realize chord symbols in multiple ways according to functional classifications, and practice making substitutions of these realizations accordingly. In contrast, Western classical musicians read music that specifies particular realizations so that they rarely make such functional substitutions. We advance a theory that experienced improvisers more readily perceive musical structures with similar functions as sounding similar by virtue of this categorization, and that this categorization partly enables the ability to improvise by allowing performers to make substitutions. We tested this with an oddball task while recording electroencephalography. In the task, a repeating standard chord progression was randomly interspersed with two kinds of deviants: one in which one of the chords was substituted with a chord from the same functional class (“exemplar deviant”), and one in which the substitution was outside the functional class (“function deviant”). For function compared to exemplar deviants, participants with more improvisation experience responded more quickly and accurately and had more discriminable N2c and P3b ERP components. Further, N2c and P3b signal discriminability predicted participants’ behavioral ability to discriminate the stimuli. Our research contributes to the cognitive science of creativity through identifying differences in knowledge organization as a trait that facilitates creative ability.
ArdenR.ChavezR. S.GraziopleneR.JungR. E. (2010). Neuroimaging creativity: A psychometric view. Behavioural Brain Research, 214, 143–156.
2.
BengtssonS. L.CsíkszentmihályiM.UllénF. (2007). Cortical regions involved in the generation of musical structures during improvisation in pianists. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 830–842.
3.
BerkowitzA. L.AnsariD. (2008). Generation of novel motor sequences: The neural correlates of musical improvisation. Neuroimage, 41(2), 535–543. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.02.028
4.
BerkowitzA. L.AnsariD. (2010). Expertise-related deactivation of the right temporoparietal junction during musical improvisation. Neuroimage, 49(1), 712–719. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.08.042
5.
BerlinerP. (1994). Thinking in jazz: The infinite art of improvisation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
DelormeA.MakeigS. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134(1), 9–21.
7.
de ManzanoÖ.UllénF. (2012). Goal-independent mechanisms for free response generation: Creative and pseudo-random performance share neural substrates. NeuroImage, 59, 772–780.
8.
DonnayG. F.RankinS. K.Lopez-GonzalezM.JiradejvongP.LimbC. J. (2014). Neural substrates of interactive musical improvisation: An fMRI study of ‘trading fours’ in jazz. PLoS ONE, 9(2), 1–10.
9.
FrielerK.PfleidererM.ZaddachW. -G.AbeßerJ. (2016). Midlevel analysis of monophonic jazz solos: A new approach to the study of improvisation. Musicae Scientiae, 20, 143–162.
10.
FujiokaT.TrainorL. J.RossB.KakigiR.PantevC. (2004). Musical training enhances automatic encoding of melodic contour and interval structure. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1010–1021.
11.
GoehrL. (1992). The imaginary museum of musical works. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
GoldmanA. (2013). Towards a cognitive-scientific research program for improvisation: Theory and an experiment. Psychomusicology, 23, 210–221.
HamiltonA. F. d. C.GraftonS. T. (2006). Goal representation in human anterior intraparietal sulcus. Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 1133–1137.
15.
HantzE. C.CrummerG. C.WaymanJ. W.WaltonJ. P.FrisinaR. D. (1992). Effects of musical training and absolute pitch on the neural processing of melodic intervals: A P3 event-related potential study. Music Perception, 10, 25–42.
16.
HargreavesW. (2012). Generating ideas in jazz improvisation: Where theory meets practice. International Journal of Music Education, 30, 354–367.
17.
HarrisR.de JongB. M. (2015). Differential parietal and temporal contributions to music perception in improvising and score-dependent musicians, an fMRI study. Brain Research, 1624, 253–264.
18.
JohnsonR.DonchinE. (1980). P300 and stimulus categorization: Two plus one is not so different from one plus one. Psychophysiology, 17, 167–178.
19.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (1991). Jazz improvisation: A theory at the computational level. In HowellP.WestR.CrossI. (Eds.), Representing musical structure (pp. 291–325). London: Academic.
20.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (2002). How jazz musicians improvise. Music Perception, 19, 415–442.
21.
KriegeskorteN.MurM.BandettiniP. (2008). Representational similarity analysis – connecting the branches of systems neuroscience. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 2, 1–28.
22.
LewisG. E.PiekutB. (Eds.). (2016). The Oxford handbook of critical improvisation studies. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
LimbC. J.BraunA. R. (2008). Neural substrates of spontaneous musical performance: An fMRI study of jazz improvisation. PLoS ONE, 3(2), e1679.
24.
LiuS.ChowH. M.XuY.ErkkinenM. G.SwettK. E.EagleM. W.. . . BraunA. R. (2012). Neural correlates of lyrical improvisation: An fMRI study of freestyle rap. Scientific Reports, 2, 834. doi:10.1038/srep00834
25.
LoveS. C. (2017). An ecological description of jazz improvisation. Psychomusicology, 27, 31–44. doi:10.1037/pmu0000173
26.
MaesP.-J.LemanM.PalmerC.WanderleyM. M. (2014). Action-based effects on music perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1008. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.01008
27.
NooshinL. (2003). Improvisation as ‘other’: Creativity, knowledge and power—The case of Iranian classical music. Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 128, 242–296.
28.
NorgaardM. (2011). Descriptions of improvisational thinking by artist-level jazz musicians. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59, 109–127.
29.
NorgaardM. (2014). How jazz musicians improvise: The central role of auditory and motor patterns. Music Perception, 31, 271–287.
30.
NorgaardM.SpencerJ.MontielM. (2013). Testing cognitive theories by creating a pattern-based probabilistic algorithm for melody and rhythm in jazz improvisation. Psychomusicology, 23, 271–287.
31.
NovembreG.KellerP. E. (2014). A conceptual review on action-perception coupling in the musicians’ brain: What is it good for?Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–11.
32.
OldfieldR. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.
33.
ParraL. C.SpenceC. D.GersonA. D.SajdaP. (2005). Recipes for the linear analysis of EEG. Neuroimage, 28, 326–341.
34.
PfleidererM.FrielerK. (2010). The Jazzomat project. Issues and methods for the automatic analysis of jazz improvisations. In BaderR.NeuhausC.MorgensternU. (Eds.), Concepts, experiments, and fieldwork: Studies in systematic musicology and ethnomusicology. (pp. 279–295). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
35.
PinhoA. L.de ManzanoÖ.FranssonP.ErikssonH.UllénF. (2014). Connecting to create: Expertise in musical improvisation is associated with increased functional connectivity between premotor and prefrontal areas. Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 6156–6163.
36.
PolichJ. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118, 2128–2148.
37.
PressingJ. (1988). Improvisation: Methods and models. In SlobodaJ. A. (Ed.), Generative processes in music: The psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition (pp. 129–178). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
38.
PressingJ. (1998). Psychological constraints on improvisational expertise and communication. In NettlB.RussellM. (Eds.), In the course of performance: Studies in the world of musical improvisation (pp. 47–67). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
39.
RitterW.SimsonR.VaughanH. G. (1983). Event-related potential correlates of two stages of information processing in physical and semantic discrimination tasks. Psychophysiology, 20(2), 168–179.
40.
SaarinenJ.PaavilainenP.SchögerE.TervaniemiM.NäätänenR. (1992). Representation of abstract attributes of auditory stimuli in the human brain. NeuroReport, 3, 1149–1151.
41.
SudnowD. (1978). Ways of the hand: The organization of improvised conduct. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
42.
SussmanE.WinklerI.HuotilainenM.RitterW.NäätänenR. (2002). Top-down effects can modify the initially stimulus-driven auditory organization. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 393–405.
43.
TervaniemiM.JanhunenL.KruckS.PutkinenV.HuotilainenM. (2015). Auditory profiles of classical, jazz, and rock musicians: Genre-specific sensitivity to musical sound features. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–11.
44.
TownsendJ. T.AshbyF. G. (1978). Methods of modeling capacity in simple processing systems. In CastellanJ.RestleF. (Eds.), Cognitive theory (pp. 200–239). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
45.
TownsendJ. T.AshbyF. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
VuustP.BratticoE.SeppänenM.NäätänenR.TervaniemiM. (2012). The sound of music: Differentiating musicians using a fast, musical multi-feature mismatch negativity paradigm. Neuropsychologia, 50, 1432–1443.
47.
VuustP.PallesenK. J.BaileyC.van ZuijenT. L.GjeddeA.RoepstorffA.ØstergaardL. (2005). To musicians, the message is in the meter: Pre-attentive neuronal responses to incongruent rhythm are left-lateralized in musicians. NeuroImage, 24, 560–564.
48.
ZhukovK. (2015). Challenging approaches to assessment of instrumental learning. In LeblerD.CareyG.HarrisonS. D. (Eds.), Assessment in music education: From policy to practice (pp. 55–70). Cham: Springer International.
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.
