This study presents two experiments on the perception of structural boundaries in Western popular music. In the first experiment, subjects segmented two polyphonic representations of six different songs. In the second experiment, subjects rated the salience of boundaries selected from the first experiment and indicated which musical cues were responsible for the boundaries. The overall frequency of boundary indications was highly correlated with the mean salience rating, suggesting that the number of boundary indications across subjects is a good measure of boundary salience. The strongest cues for boundaries indicated by subjects were harmonic-progression, rhythm-changes, timbre-changes, and tempo-changes. Furthermore, boundary indications and their salience ratings were compared with those from a previous study in which monophonic representations of the same songs had been used (Bruderer, McKinney, & Kohlrausch, 2009). Results show that the segment boundaries are perceived at similar time instances and their strengths are highly correlated across the three representations.
BigandE., McAdamsS., & ForêtS. (2000). Divided attention in music.International Journal of Psychology, 35(6), 270–78.
2.
BodR. (2002). Memory-based models of melodic analysis: Challenging the gestalt principles.Journal of New Music Research, 31(1), 27–36.
3.
BregmanA. S. (1990). Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
BrudererM. J., McKinneyM. F., & kohlrauschA. (2009). The perception of structural boundaries in melody lines of Western popular music.Musicæ Scientiæ, 8(2), 273–313.
5.
CambouropoulosE. (1997). Musical Rhythm: A Formal Model for Determining Local Boundaries, Accents and Metre in a Melodic Surface. In LemanM. (ed), Music, Gestalt, and Computing (p. 277–293). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
6.
CambouropoulosE. (2001). The Local Boundary Detection Model (LBDM) and its application in the study of expressive timing. In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference (ICMC2001). Havana, Cuba.
7.
CambouropoulosE. (2006a). Musical parallelism and melodic segmentation: A computational approach.Music Perception, 23(3), 249–67.
8.
CambouropoulosE. (2006b). “Voice” Separation: Theoretical, perceptual and computational perspectives. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Music Perception & Cognition (ICMPC9) (pp. 987–97). Bologna, Italy.
9.
ChuanC.-H., & ChewE. (2007). A dynamic programming approach to the extraction of phrase boundaries from tempo variations in expressive performances. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR 2007). vienna, Austria.
DeliègeI. (1987). Grouping conditions in listening to music.Music Perception, 4(4), 325–60.
12.
DeliègeI., & AhmadiA. E. (1990). Mechanisms of cue extraction in musical grouping: A study of perception on Sequenza VI for viola Solo by Luciano Berio.Psychology of Music, 18, 18–44.
13.
FranklandB. W., & CohenA. J. (2004). Parsing of melody: Quantification and testing of the local grouping rules of “Lerdahl and Jackendoff's A Generative Theory of Tonal Music”.Music Perception, 21(4), 499–543.
14.
GotoM., HashiguchiH., NishimuraT, & OkaR. (2002). RWC music database: Popular, classical, and jazz music databases. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR 2002) (pp. 287–88). Paris, France.
15.
ItoyamaK., GotoM., komataniK., OgataT, & OkunoH. G. (2007). Integration and adaptation of harmonic and inharmonic models for separating polyphonic musical signals. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP 2007) (p. I-57–60). Honolulu, USA.
16.
JanataP., TillmannB., & BharuchaJ. J. (2002). Listening to polyphonic music recruits domain-general attention and working memory circuits.Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 2(2), 121–40.
17.
KlapuriA. P. (2004). Automatic music transcription as we know it today.Journal of New Music Research, 33(3), 269–82.
18.
KnöscheT. R., NeuhausC., HaueisenJ., AlterK., MaessB., WitteO. W. (2005). Perception of phrase structure in music.Human Brain Mapping, 24, 259–73.
19.
KrumhanslC. L. (1996). A perceptual analysis of Mozart's Piano Sonata K. 282: Segmentation, tension, and musical ideas.Music Perception, 13(3), 401–432.
20.
LerdahlF., & JackendoffR. (1983). A Generative Theory of Tonal Music.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
PearceM. T., MüllensiefenD., & WigginsG. A. (2009). Statistical learning vs. programmed rules in auditory boundary perception: comparing models of musical listening. submitted.
22.
SlobodaJ., & EdworthyJ. (1981). Attending to two melodies at once: The effect of key relatedness.Psychology of Music, 9, 39–43.
23.
SpevaC., ThomB., & HöthkerK. (2002). Evaluating melodic segmentation. In Music and Artificial Intelligence, Second International Conference (ICMAI 2002) (vol. 2445, pp. 168–82). Berlin, Germany.
24.
TemperleyD. (2001). The Cognition of Basic Musical Structure.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
TenneyJ., & PolanskyL. (1980). Temporal gestalt perception in music.Journal of Music Theory, 24, 205–41.
26.
TillmannB., & BigandE. (1998). Influence of global structure on musical target detection and recognition.International Journal of Psychology, 33(2), 107–22.
27.
TillmannB., BigandE., & MadurellF. (1998). Local versus global processing of harmonic cadences in the solution of musical puzzles.Psychological Research, 61, 157–74.
