Anticipating the future is essential for efficient perception and action planning. Yet the role of anticipation in event segmentation is understudied because empirical research has focused on retrospective cues such as surprise. We address this concern in the context of perception of musical-phrase boundaries. A computational model of cognitive sequence processing was used to control the information-dynamic properties of tone sequences. In an implicit, self-paced listening task (N = 38), undergraduates dwelled longer on tones generating high entropy (i.e., high uncertainty) than on those generating low entropy (i.e., low uncertainty). Similarly, sequences that ended on tones generating high entropy were rated as sounding more complete (N = 31 undergraduates). These entropy effects were independent of both the surprise (i.e., information content) and phrase position of target tones in the original musical stimuli. Our results indicate that events generating high entropy prospectively contribute to segmentation processes in auditory sequence perception, independently of the properties of the subsequent event.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
2.
BrooksM. E.KristensenK.van BenthemK. J.MagnussonA.BergC. W.NielsenA.SkaugH. J.MachlerM.BolkerB. M. (2017). glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R Journal, 9(2), 378–400. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000240890
3.
ChaffinR.ImrehG. (2002). Practicing perfection: Piano performance as expert memory. Psychological Science, 13(4), 342–349.
4.
ChiM. T.FeltovichP. J.GlaserR. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.
5.
ChristiansenM. H.ChaterN. (2016). The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 39, Article e62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1500031X
6.
CohenP.AdamsN.HeeringaB. (2007). Voting experts: An unsupervised algorithm for segmenting sequences. Intelligent Data Analysis, 11(6), 607–625.
7.
CousineauD. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45.
8.
CreightonH. (Ed.). (1966). Songs and ballads from Nova Scotia. Dover.
DeliègeI. (1987). Grouping conditions in listening to music: An approach to Lerdahl & Jackendoff’s grouping preference rules. Music Perception, 4(4), 325–359.
11.
DörffelA. (Ed.). (1875). 371 vierstimmige Choralgesänge von Johann Sebastian Bach [371 harmonized chorales by Johann Sebastian Bach] (4th ed.). Breitkopf & Härtel.
12.
HansenN. C.PearceM. T. (2014). Predictive uncertainty in auditory sequence processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1052. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01052
13.
HansenN. C.VuustP.PearceM. (2016). “If you have to ask, you’ll never know”: Effects of specialised stylistic expertise on predictive processing of music. PLOS ONE, 11(10), Article e0163584. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163584
14.
HansenN. C.VuustP.PearceM.HuronD. (2017, August). Entropic ebbs and flows: The expectancy dynamics of musical phrases [Paper presentation]. The Society for Music Perception and Cognition Meeting, San Diego, CA, United States.
15.
HardB. M.MeyerM.BaldwinD. (2019). Attention reorganizes as structure is detected in dynamic action. Memory & Cognition, 47(1), 17–32.
16.
HardB. M.RecchiaG.TverskyB. (2011). The shape of action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(4), 586–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024310
17.
HartmannM.LartillotO.ToiviainenP. (2017). Interaction features for prediction of perceptual segmentation: Effects of musicianship and experimental task. Journal of New Music Research, 46(2), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/09298215.2016.1230137
18.
HutchinsonJ. B.BarrettL. F. (2019). The power of predictions: An emerging paradigm for psychological research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(3), 280–291.
19.
KoelschS.VuustP.FristonK. (2019). Predictive processes and the peculiar case of music. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(1), 63–77.
20.
KosieJ. E.BaldwinD. (2019a). Attention rapidly reorganizes to naturally occurring structure in a novel activity sequence. Cognition, 182, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.09.004
21.
KosieJ. E.BaldwinD. (2019b). Attentional profiles linked to event segmentation are robust to missing information. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0157-4
22.
KragnessH. E.TrainorL. J. (2016). Listeners lengthen phrase boundaries in self-paced music. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(10), 1676–1686. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000245
23.
KragnessH. E.TrainorL. J. (2018). Young children pause on phrase boundaries in self-paced music listening: The role of harmonic cues. Developmental Psychology, 54(5), 842–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000405
24.
KurbyC. A.ZacksJ. M. (2008). Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(2), 72–79.
25.
LerdahlF.JackendoffR. (1983). A generative theory of tonal music. MIT Press.
26.
LevinsonS. C. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication: Origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010
27.
MeinzE. J.HambrickD. Z. (2010). Deliberate practice is necessary but not sufficient to explain individual differences in piano sight-reading skill: The role of working memory capacity. Psychological Science, 21(7), 914–919.
28.
MorganE.FogelA.NairA.PatelA. D. (2019). Statistical learning and Gestalt-like principles predict melodic expectations. Cognition, 189, 23–34.
29.
NicholsonS.KnightG. H.BowerJ. D. (Eds.). (1950). Hymns: Ancient & modern revised. William Clowes.
30.
PalmerC. (1989). Mapping musical thought to musical performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(2), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.15.2.331
31.
PalmerC.KrumhanslC. L. (1987). Independent temporal and pitch structures in determination of musical phrases. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(1), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.13.1.116
32.
PearceM. T. (2005). The construction and evaluation of statistical models of melodic structure in music perception and composition [Doctoral dissertation, City, University of London]. https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/8459/1/
33.
PearceM. T.MüllensiefenD.WigginsG. (2010). The role of expectation and probabilistic learning in auditory boundary perception: A model comparison. Perception, 39(10), 1367–1391. https://doi.org/10.1068/p6507
34.
PenelA.DrakeC. (1998). Sources of timing variations in music performance: A psychological segmentation model. Psychological Research, 61(1), 12–32.
35.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.6.2) [Computer software]. https://www.R-project.org/
36.
ReppB. H. (1992). Probing the cognitive representation of musical time: Structural constraints on the perception of timing perturbations. Cognition, 44(3), 241–281.
37.
RichmondL. L.ZacksJ. M. (2017). Constructing experience: Event models from perception to action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(12), 962–980.
SchaffrathH. (1995). Folksongs from Germany. In HuronD. (Ed.), The Essen folksong collection in the Humdrum kern format (HuronD., Ed.). Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities. https://kern.humdrum.org/cgi-bin/browse?l=essen/europa/deutschl
40.
WightmanC. W.Shattuck-HufnagelS.OstendorfM.PriceP. J. (1992). Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91(3), 1707–1717. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.402450
41.
YangC. D. (2004). Universal grammar, statistics or both?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(10), 451–456.
42.
ZacksJ. M.SwallowK. M. (2007). Event segmentation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2), 80–84.
43.
ZacksJ. M.TverskyB.IyerG. (2001). Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(1), 29–58.
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.
