Music research aims at developing a research space that, in a proactive sense, can support the development of creative and cultural industries. In that context, we argue that a focus on users and their experiences in using tools may become more important in music research. It implies an expansion of the traditional methods of music psychology with methods that can address relevant features of musical action and musical tool use. This paper discusses epistemological and methodological issues related to this development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ÅborgC., SandbladB., GulliksenJ., & LifM. (2003). Integrating work environment considerations into usability evaluation methods—the ADA approach.Interacting with computers15(3), 453–471.
2.
AdessiA. R., & PachetF. (2005). Experiments with a musical machine: musical style replication in 3 to 5 year old children.British Journal of Music Education, 22(1), 21–46.
3.
A. R. AddessiS., CarlottiL., FerrariF., & PachetF. (2006). Young children's Musical Experiences with a Flow Machine.Proceedings of 9th International Conference of Music Perception and Cognition (ESCOM), BOLOGNA, Bononia University Press, 2006.
4.
BainbridgeD., CunninghamS. J., & DownieJ. S. (2003). How people describe their music information needs: A grounded theory analysis of music queries. In H. Holger, Hoos & D. Bainbridge (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference on music information retrieval: ISMIR 2003 (pp. 221–222).
5.
BevanN. (1995). Measuring usability as quality of use.Software Quality Journal4(2), 115–150.
6.
BevilaquaF., GuedyF., SchnellN., FletyE., & LeyroyN. (2007). Wireless sensor interface and gesture-follower for music pedagogy.Proceedings of the 7th international conference on New interfaces for musical expression (pp. 124–129). New York, NY, USA, ACM (2007).
7.
BioccaF., & NowakK. (2001). Plugging your body into the telecommunication system: Mediated embodiment, media interfaces, and social virtual environments. In LinC., & AtkinD. (Eds.), Communication technology and society.Waverly Hill, VI: Hampton Press.
8.
BorchersJ. O. (2001). A pattern approach to interaction design.AI & Society15(4), 359–376.
9.
ChauT., EatonC., SchwellnusH., HamdaniY., LamontA., TamC., KnoxR., & JohnsonP. (2003). Design and usability of a movement-to-music system for the rehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy, International Conference on Cerebral Palsy, Quebec, April 30-May 3, 2003 (Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 2003, Supplement No. 94, Vol. 45, p.50).
10.
ChenV. H-H, & DuhH. B-L (2009). Investigating user experience of online communities: The influence of community type. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering (pp 509–514).
11.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience.New York: Harper & Row.
12.
CsikszentmihalyiM., & HunterJ. (2003). Happiness in everyday life: The uses of experience sampling.Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(2), 18–199.
13.
CunninghamS. J., ReevesN., & BritlandM. (2003). An ethnographic study of music information seeking: Implications for the design of a music digital library. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries, IEEE Computer Society (pp. 5-16).
14.
CustoderoL. A. (2005). Observable indicators of flow experience: A developmental perspective on musical engagement in young children from infancy to school age.Music Education Research, 7(2), 185–209.
15.
De BruynL., LemanM., DemeyM., DesmetF., & MoelantsD. (2008). Measuring and quantifying the impact of social interaction on listeners’ movements to music.Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Computer Music Modeling and Retrieval. Copenhagen: Denmark.
16.
De BruynL., MoelantsD., CoussementP., LemanM. (2009). An interactive sound recognition game for primary school children. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the European Network of Music Educators and Researchers of Young Children (MERYC2009). Bologna: Italy.
17.
DecetyJ., & JacksonP. L., (2006). A social-neuroscience perspective on empathy.Current directions in psychological science, 15(2), 54–58.
18.
DeliègeI. (1987). Grouping conditions in listening to music: An approach to Lerdahl & Jackendoff ‘s grouping preference rules.Music Perception4(4), 325–359.
19.
DeliègeI., & WigginsG. (2006). Musical creativity multidisciplinary research in theory and practice.Hove, UK, and New York, NY: Psychology Press, 2006.
20.
DemeyM., LemanM., & CornelisO. (2008). The IPEM_EME: a Wireless music controller for real-time. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Auditory Display.
21.
DemeyM., LemanM., De BruynL., BossuytF., & VanfleterenJ. (2008). The Musical Synchrotron: using wireless motion sensors to study how social interaction affects synchronization with musical tempo.Proceedings of the conference of New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME ‘08). Genova, Italy.
22.
DemoucronM., & RasamimananaN., (2009). Score-based real-time performance with a virtual violin, DAFx.
23.
De MulderT., MartensJ.P., LesaffreM., LemanM., De BaetsB., & De MeyerH. (2003). An auditory model based transcriber of vocal queries.Proceedings of the International Conference on Music Information Retrieval, Baltimore, Maryland, USA and Library of Congress, Washington, DC, US.
24.
DesainP., & HoningH. (2003). The formation of rhythmic categories and metric priming.Perception32(3), 341–365.
25.
DeutschD. (1999). The psychology of music.San Diego, Academic Press.
26.
DeweppeA., LemanM., & LesaffreM. (2009). Discerning user profiles and establishing usability for the interactive music applications that use embodied mediation technology. In LouhivuoriJ., EerolaT., SaarikallioS., HimbergT., EerolaP-S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music (ESCOM 2009), Jyväskylä, Finland.
27.
DourishP. (2001). Where the action Is: The foundations of embodied interaction.Cambridge: MIT Press
28.
FutrelleJ., & DownieJ. S. (2002). Interdisciplinary communities and research issues in Music Information Retrieval. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR02) (pp. 215–221), Paris.
29.
GodøyR. I., & LemanM. (Eds.) (2009). Musical gestures: Sound, movement, and meaning.New York, Routledge.
30.
HallamS., CrossI. (2009). The Oxford handbook of music psychology.Oxford; New York, Oxford University Press.
31.
HeylenE., MoelantsD., & LemanM. (2006). Singing along with music to explore tonality. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition, Bologna.
32.
HiroseN. (2002). An ecological approach to embodiment and cognition.Cognitive Systems Research3(3), 289–299.
33.
HuntA., WanderlyM., & KirkR., (2000). Towards a model for instrumental mapping in expert musical interaction. In Proceedings of the 2000 International Computer Music Conference (pp. 209–211). San Francisco, CA: International Computer Music Association.
34.
HuntA., WanderlyM., & ParadisM. (2003). The importance of parameter mapping in electronic instrument design.Journal of New Music Research, 32(4), 429–440
35.
InskoB. (2003). Measuring presence: Participantive, behavioral and physiological methods. In RivaG., DavideF., IjsselsteijinW. A. (Eds.). Being there: Concepts, effects and measurement of user presence in synthetic environments.Ios Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
36.
IvoryJ. D., & MageeR. G. (2009). You can't take it with you? effects of handheld portable media consoles on physiological and psychological responses to video game and movie content.CyberPsychology & Behavior12(3), 291–297.
37.
JacksonS., & EklundR. (2004). The flow scales manual.Fitness Information Technology.
38.
JiY. G., ParkJ. H., LeeC., & YunM. H. (2006). A usability checklist for the usability evaluation of mobile phone user interface.International journal of human-computer interaction20(3), 207–231.
39.
JuslinP. N., & VastfjallD. (2008). Emotional responses to music: The need to consider underlying mechanisms.Behavioral and Brain Sciences31(5), 559-+.
40.
KellerP. E. (2008). Joint action in music performance. In MorgantiF., CarassaA., & RivaG. (Eds.), Enacting intersubjectivity: A cognitive and social perspective to the study of interactions (pp. 205–221). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
KiiliK. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model.The Internet and higher education, 8(1), 13–24.
43.
KrumhanslC. L. (1990). Cognitive foundations of musical pitch.New York, Oxford University Press.
44.
LaarniJ., RavajaN. (2004). Personality-related differences in participantive presence. Proceedings of the PRESENCE (pp. 88–95).
45.
LaneauJ., WoutersJ., & MonnenM. (2006). Improved music perception with explicit pitch coding in cochlear implants.Audio Neorotol11, 38–52.
46.
LemanM. (1995). Music and schema theory: Cognitive foundations of systematic musicology.Berlin, Springer.
47.
LemanM. (2002). Musical audio mining. In MeijJ. (Ed.), Dealing with the Data Flood: Mining Data, text and multimedia.Rotterdam: SST Netherlands Study centre for Technology Trends.
48.
LemanM., VermeulenV. (2005). Prediction of musical affect using a combination of acoustic structural cues.Journal of New Music Research34(1), 39–67.
49.
LemanM. (2008). Embodied music cognition and mediation technology.Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
50.
LemanM. (2008). Systematic musicology at the crossroads of modern music research. In Systematic and comparative musicology: Concepts, methods, findings (pp. 89–115). Peter Lang.
51.
LemanM. (2009). Music, gesture and the formation of embodied meaning. In GodoyR.I., & LemanM. (Eds.), Music and gesture foundations.Routledge.
52.
LemanM., & GodoyR. I. (2009). Why study musical gestures? In GodoyR.I., & LemanM. (Eds.), Music and gesture foundations.Routledge.
53.
LemanM. (2009). Some reflections on systematic musicology as proactive science.Hamburger Jahrbuch für SystematischeMusikwissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Verlag.
54.
LemanM., DemeyM., LesaffreM., van NoordenL., & MoelantsD. (2009a). Concepts, technology, and assessment of the social music game ‘Sync-in-Team”. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering (pp. 837–842).
55.
LemanM. (2009). An embodied approach to music semantics.Musicae Scientiae, Discussion Forum 5, 43–68.
56.
LesaffreM., MoelantsD., LemanM., De BaetsB., De MeyerH., & MartensJ.-P. (2003a). User behavior in the spontaneous reproduction of musical pieces by vocal query. In Proceedings of the 5th triennial European Society for the Cognitive sciences of Music conference (ESCOM) (pp. 208–211). Hanover.
57.
LesaffreM., TangheK., MartensG., MoelantsD., LemanM., De BaetsB., De MeyerH., & MartensJ.-P. (2003b). The MAMI query-by-voice experiment: Collecting and annotating vocal queries for music information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR03) (pp. 65–71). Baltimore.
58.
LesaffreM., LemanM., De VoogdtL., De BaetsB., De MeyerH., & MartensJ.-P. (2006a). A user-dependent approach to the perception of high-level semantics of music. Proceedings of the International Conference of Music perception and Cognition (ICMPC). Bologna.
59.
LesaffreM., & LemanM. (2007). Using fuzzy logic to handle users’ semantic descriptions in a music retrieval system. In CastilloO. (Eds.) Theoretical Advances and Applications of Fuzzy Logic and Soft Computing (pp. 89–98). Advances in Soft Computing 42, Springer-VerlagHeidelberg Berlin New York.
60.
LesaffreM., De VoogdtL., LemanM., De BaetsB., De MeyerH., & MartensJ-P. (2008). How potential users of music search and retrieval systems describe the semantic quality of music.Journal of the American Society For Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 1–13.
61.
LesaffreM., NijsL., & LemanM. (2009). The experience of presence and flow in interacting with embodied mediation technology for music creativity. In J. Louhivuori, T. Eerola, S. Saarikallio, T. Himberg, P-S. Eerola (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music (ESCOM 2009), Jyväskylä, Finland.
62.
LombardM., & DittonT. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence.Journal of computer-mediated communication3(2), 20.
63.
MagnussonT., & MendietaE. (2007). The acoustic, the digital and the body: A survey on musical instruments. Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME07). New York, NY, USA.
64.
MalafourisL. (2008). Between brains, bodies and things: Tectonoetic awareness and the extended self.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences363(1499).
65.
MankoffJ., DeyA. K., HsiehG., KientzJ., LedererS., & AmesM. (2003). Heuristic evaluation of ambient displays. Proceedings of the Conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI 03). Fort Lauderdale: USA.
66.
MetzingerT. (2003). Being no one: The self-model theory of participantivity.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
67.
MüllensiefenD., & FrielerK. (2006). Evaluating different approaches to measuring the similarity of melodies. In BatageljV., BockH.-H., FerligojA., & ZibernaA. (Eds.), Data Science and Classification (pp. 299–306). Berlin: Springer.
68.
Newton-DunnH., NakanoH. (2003). Block jam: a tangible interface for interactive music.Proceedings of the 2003 conference on New interfaces for musical expression. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, National University of Singapore.
69.
NielsenJ., & MolichR. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems Empowering people (CHI ‘90) (pp. 249–256).
70.
NielsenJ. (1994). Usability inspection methods.Proceedings of the CHI ‘94 conference. Boston, USA.
71.
NijsL., LemanM., & LesaffreM. (2009). The musical instrument as extension of the body. In Proceedings of 5th Conference on Interdisciplinary Musicology. Paris.
72.
PachetF. (2002). The continuator: Musical interaction with style.Stockholm Music Performance Symposium.Stockholm, Sweden, Swets Zeitlinger Publishers.
73.
RabardelP. (1995). Les Hommes et les technologies: approche cognitive des instruments contemporains.Paris, Armand Collin.
74.
RivaG. (2006). Being-in-the-world-with: Presence meets social and cognitive neuroscience. In RivaG., AngueraM.T., WiederholdB.K., & MantovaniF. (Eds.), From Communication to Presence: Cognition, Emotions and Culture towards the Ultimate Communicative Experience. Festschrift in honor of Luigi Anolli (pp. 47–80). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
75.
RivaG. (2009). Is presence a technology issue? Some insights from cognitive sciences.Virtual Reality13(3), 159–169.
76.
SchwellnusH., TamC., ChauT., KnoxR., JohnsonP., & HamdaniY. (2002). Using movement-to-music technology for play with children with special needs.OT Now, July.
77.
SetharesW. (1998). Tuning, timbre, spectrum, scale.Springer, New York
78.
SquireK. (2003). Video games in education.International journal of intelligent simulations and gaming2(1), 49–62.
79.
St JohnP.A. (2006). A community of learners: young music-makers scaffolding flow-experience. In Baroni (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Music Perception and Cognition.Bononia University Press, Bologna.
80.
StowellD., RobertsonA., Bryan-KinnsN., & PlumbleyM. D. (2009). Evaluation of live human-computer music-making: Quantitative and qualitative approaches.International journal of human-computer studies67(11), 960–975.
81.
StricklerZ. (1999). Elicitation methods in experimental design research.Design issues15(2), 27–39.
82.
SweetserP., & WyethP. (2005). GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games.Computers in entertainment3(3), 1–24.
83.
TakataloJ. (2002). Presence and flow in virtual environments: An explorative study. Master's thesis, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
84.
TaljaS. (1999). Analyzing qualitative interview data the discourse analytic method.Library & information science research21(4), 459–477.
85.
TseliosN., AvourisN., & VassilisK. (2008). The effective combination of hybrid usability methods in evaluating educational applications of ICT: Issues and challenges.Education and information technologies13(1), 55–76.
86.
TypkeR., WieringF., & VeltkampR.C. (2007). Transportation distances and human perception of melodic similarity.Musicae Scientiae, Similarity Perception in Listening to Music, 153–181.
87.
UitdenbogerdA., & van SchyndelR. (2002). A review of factors affecting music recommender success. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR02) (pp. 204–208). Paris.
88.
Van BarenJ., & IjsselsteijnW. (2004). Measuring presence: A guide to current measurement approaches. OmniPres project IST-2001-39237, Project Report.
89.
VälimäkiV. (2004). Physics-based modeling of musical instruments.Acta Acustica United with Acustica90(4), 611–617.
90.
VarelaF. J., ThompsonE., & RoschE. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
91.
WanderleyM. M., & OrioN. (2002). Evaluation of input devices for musical expression: bor-rowing tools from HCI.Computer Music Journal26(3), 62–76.
92.
WhartonC., RiemanJ., LewisC., & PolsonP. (1994). The cognitive walkthrough method: A practitioner's guide. In NielsenJ., MackR. L. (Eds.), Usability inspection methods.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
93.
WitmerB. G., & SingerM. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire.Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240.
