I present a preliminary study intended to explore the explication of the mechanisms of cue abstraction (Deliège, 1987, ff.) in terms of the information dynamics of music. I build on the apparent relation between cue abstraction and the paradigmatic analysis technique of Ruwet (1972). I argue that the introduction of the IDyOM information-theoretic model of musical listening (Pearce, 2005; Wiggins et al., 2009) into the study begins to account for the appearance of cues and imprint formation, in Deliège's terms. I illustrate how the model may in future contribute to systems which are capable of automating the process of music analysis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CleeremansA., & DienesZ. (2008). Computational models of implicit learning. In SunR. (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Computational Psychology (pp. 396–421). Cambridge University Press.
2.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.
3.
ConklinD., & WittenI. H. (1995). Multiple viewpoint systems for music prediction.Journal of New Music Research, 24, 51–73.
4.
DeliègeI. (1987). Grouping conditions in listening to music: An approach to Lerdahl and Jackendoff's grouping preference rules.Music Perception, 4, 325–360.
5.
DeliègeI. (1996). Cue abstraction as a component of categorisation processes in music listening.Psychology of Music, 24(2), 131–156.
HoningH. (2006). Computational modeling of music cognition: A case study on model selection.Music Perception, 23(5), 365–376.
8.
LandisJ., & KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
9.
NarmourE. (1990). The analysis and cognition of basic melodic structures: The implication-realistation model.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
10.
NattiezJ.-J. (1975). Fondements d'une sémiologie de la musique.Paris: Union Générale d'Editions.
11.
PearceM. T. (2005). The construction and evaluation of statistical models of melodic structure in music perception and composition. PhD thesis, Department of Computing, City University, London, UK.
12.
PearceM. T., Herrojo RuizM., KapasiS., WigginsG. A., & BhattacharyaJ. (2010). Unsupervised statistical learning underpins computational, behavioural and neural manifestations of musical expectation.NeuroImage, 50(1), 303–314.
13.
PearceM. T., MüllensiefenD., & WigginsG. A. (2008). Melodic segmentation: A new method and a framework for model comparison. In Proceedings of ISMIR 2008.
14.
PearceM. T., & WigginsG. A. (2006). Expectation in melody: The influence of context and learning.Music Perception, 23(5), 377–406.
15.
PotterK., WigginsG. A., & PearceM. T. (2007). Towards greater objectivity in music theory: Information-dynamic analysis of minimalist music.Musicae Scientiae, 11(2), 295–324.
16.
RuwetN. (1972). Language, musique, poésie.Paris: Editions du Seuil.
17.
ShannonC. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication.Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423, 623-56.
18.
SmaillA., WigginsG. A., & HarrisM. (1993). Hierarchical music representation for analysis and composition.Computers and the Humanities, 27, 7–17.
19.
WigginsG. A. (2007). Models of musical similarity.Musicae Scientiae, Discussion Forum 4a, pages 315–337.
20.
WigginsG. A. (2010). Computer models of (music) cognition. In RebuschatP., RohrmeierM., CrossI., & HawkinsJ. (Eds.), Language and Music as Cognitive Systems.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
WigginsG. A., PearceM. T., & MüllensiefenD. (2009). Computational modelling of music cognition and musical creativity. In DeanR. (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Computer Music and Digital Sound Culture.Oxford University Press.
