Humans show a tendency to represent pitch in a spatial format. A classical finding supporting this spatial representation is the Spatial–Musical Association of Response Codes (SMARC) effect, reflecting faster responses to low tones when pressing a left/bottom-side key and to high tones when pressing a right/top-side key. Despite available evidence suggesting that the horizontal and vertical SMARC effect may be differently modulated by instrumental expertise and musical timbre, no study has so far directly explored this hypothesis in a unified framework. Here, we investigated this possibility by comparing the performance of professional pianists, professional clarinettists and non-musicians in an implicit timbre judgement task, in both horizontal and vertical response settings. Results showed that instrumental expertise significantly modulates the SMARC effect: whereas in the vertical plane a comparable SMARC effect was observed in all groups, in the horizontal plane the SMARC effect was significantly modulated by the specific instrumental expertise, with pianists showing a stronger pitch–space association compared to clarinettists and non-musicians. Moreover, the influence of pitch along the horizontal dimension was stronger in those pianists who started the instrumental training at a younger age. Results also showed an influence of musical timbre in driving the horizontal, but not the vertical, SMARC effect, with only piano notes inducing a pitch–space association. Taken together, these findings suggest that sensorimotor experience due to instrumental training and musical timbre affect the mental representation of pitch on the horizontal space, whereas the one on the vertical space would be mainly independent from musical practice.
AkhtarN.EnnsJ. T. (1989). Relations between convert orienting and filtering in the development of visual attention. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48(2), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(89)90008-8
2.
BaileyJ. A.PenhuneV. B. (2013). The relationship between the age of onset of musical training and rhythm synchronization performance: Validation of sensitive period effects. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, Article 227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2013.00227
3.
BaileyJ. A.ZatorreR. J.PenhuneV. B. (2014). Early musical training is linked to gray matter structure in the ventral premotor cortex and auditory-motor rhythm synchronization performance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(4), 755–767. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00527
4.
BakemanR. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 379–384. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192707
5.
Ben-ArtziE.MarksL. E. (1995). Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: Role of stimulus difference. Perception & Psychophysics, 57(8), 1151–1162. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208371
6.
BrownR. M.ChenJ. L.HollingerA.PenhuneV. B.PalmerC.ZatorreR. J. (2013). Repetition suppression in auditory-motor regions to pitch and temporal structure in music. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(2), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00322
7.
CattaneoZ.LegaC.RinaldiL.FantinoM.FerrariC.MerabetL. B.VecchiT. (2018). The Spatial Musical Association of Response Codes does not depend on a normal visual experience: A study with early blind individuals. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(4), 813–821. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-1495-x
8.
ChenJ. L.RaeC.WatkinsK. E. (2012). Learning to play a melody: An fMRI study examining the formation of auditory-motor associations. NeuroImage, 59(2), 1200–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.012
9.
ChoY. S.BaeG. Y.ProctorR. W. (2012). Referential coding contributes to the horizontal SMARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 726–734. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026157
10.
ChoY. S.ProctorR. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 45–73. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196468
11.
DolscheidS.HunniusS.CasasantoD.MajidA. (2014). Prelinguistic infants are sensitive to space-pitch associations found across cultures. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1256–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614528521
DrostU. C.RiegerM.BrassM.GunterT. C.PrinzW. (2005b). When hearing turns into playing: Movement induction by auditory stimuli in pianists. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(8), 1376–1389. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000610
15.
DrostU. C.RiegerM.PrinzW. (2007). Instrument specificity in experienced musicians. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(4), 527–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210601154388
16.
GoffauxV.HaultB.MichelC.VuongQ. C.RossionB. (2005). The respective role of low and high spatial frequencies in supporting configural and featural processing of faces. Perception, 34(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5370
17.
HaueisenJ.KnöscheT. R. (2001). Involuntary motor activity in pianists evoked by music perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(6), 786–792. https://doi.org/10.1162/08989290152541449
18.
HerholzS. C.CoffeyE. B. J.PantevC.ZatorreR. J. (2016). Dissociation of neural networks for predisposition and for training-related plasticity in auditory-motor learning. Cerebral Cortex, 26(7), 3125–3134. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv138
JewellG.McCourtM. E. (2000). Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00045-7
21.
KellerP. E.KochI. (2008). Action planning in sequential skills: Relations to music performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(2), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210601160864
LachmairM.CressU.FisslerT.KurekS.LeiningerJ.NuerkH.-C. (2017). Music-space associations are grounded, embodied and situated: Examination of cello experts and non-musicians in a standard tone discrimination task. Psychological Research, 83, 894–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0898-y
24.
LahavA.SaltzmanE.SchlaugG. (2007). Action representation of sound: Audiomotor recognition network while listening to newly acquired actions. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(2), 308–314. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4822-06.2007
25.
LegaC.CattaneoZ.MerabetL. B.VecchiT.CucchiS. (2014). The effect of musical expertise on the representation of space. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 250. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00250
26.
LewkowiczD. J.MinarN. J. (2014). Infants are not sensitive to synesthetic cross-modality correspondences. Psychological Science, 25(3), 832–834. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613516011
27.
LidjiP.KolinskyR.LochyA.MoraisJ. (2007). Spatial associations for musical stimuli: A piano in the head?Jour-nal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(5), 1189–1207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1189
28.
LinkovskiO.Akiva-KabiriL.GertnerL.HenikA. (2012). Is it for real? Evaluating authenticity of musical pitch-space synesthesia. Cognitive Processing, 13(S1), 247–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0498-0
29.
McCourtM. E.OlafsonC. (1997). Cognitive and perceptual influences on visual line bisection: Psychophysical and chronometric analyses of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia, 35(3), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(96)00143-1
MikumoM. (1997). Multi-encoding for pitch information of tone sequences. Japanese Psychological Research, 39, 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5884.00062
32.
MondlochC. J.MaurerD. (2004). Do small white balls squeak? Pitch-object correspondences in young children. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4(2), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.4.2.133
33.
NavaE.GrassiM.TuratiC. (2016). Audio-visual, visuo-tactile and audio-tactile correspondences in preschoolers. Multisensory Research, 29(1–3), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-00002493
34.
NishimuraA.YokosawaK. (2009). Effects of laterality and pitch height of an auditory accessory stimulus on horizontal response selection: The Simon effect and the SMARC effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(4), 666–670. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.4.666
35.
OldfieldR. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113.
36.
OlejnikS.AlginaJ. (2003). Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: Measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological Methods, 8(4), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.434
37.
PantevC.RobertsL. E.SchulzM.EngelienA.RossB. (2001). Timbre-specific enhancement of auditory cortical representations in musicians. NeuroReport, 12(1), 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200101220-00041
38.
PariseC. V.KnorreK.ErnstM. O. (2014). Natural auditory scene statistics shapes human spatial hearing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(16), 6104–6108. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1322705111
39.
ParkinsonC.KohlerP. J.SieversB.WheatleyT. (2012). Associations between auditory pitch and visual elevation do not depend on language: Evidence from a remote population. Perception, 41(7), 854–861. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7225
PitteriM.MarchettiM.PriftisK.GrassiM. (2017). Naturally together: Pitch-height and brightness as coupled factors for eliciting the SMARC effect in non-musicians. Psychological Research, 81(1), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0713-6
42.
ProctorR. W.ChoY. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 416–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.416
RinaldiL.LegaC.CattaneoZ.GirelliL.BernardiN. F. (2016). Grasping the sound: Auditory pitch influences size processing in motor planning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000120
45.
RofflerS. K.ButlerR. A. (1968). Localization of tonal stimuli in the vertical plane. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 43(6), 1260–1266. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1910977
SteeleC. J.BaileyJ. A.ZatorreR. J.PenhuneV. B. (2013). Early musical training and white-matter plasticity in the corpus callosum: Evidence for a sensitive period. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(3), 1282–1290. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3578-12.2013
StewartL.VerdonschotR. G.NasrallaP.LanipekunJ. (2013). Action-perception coupling in pianists: Learned mappings or Spatial Musical Association of Response Codes (SMARC) effect?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.687385
52.
StewartL.WalshV.FrithU. (2004). Reading music modifies spatial mapping in pianists. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194871
53.
TaylorJ. E. T.WittJ. K. (2015). Listening to music primes space: Pianists, but not novices, simulate heard actions. Psychological Research, 79(2), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0544-x
54.
TimmersR.LiS. (2016). Representation of pitch in horizontal space and its dependence on musical and instrumental experience. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 26(2), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/pmu0000146
55.
TownsendJ.AshbyG. (1978). Methods of modeling capacity in simple processing systems. In CastellanJ.RestleF. (Eds.), Cognitive theory (pp. 200–239). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
56.
TrimarchiP. D.LuzzattiC. (2011). Implicit chord processing and motor representation in pianists. Psychological Research, 75(2), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-010-0292-5
57.
VaqueroL.HartmannK.RipollésP.RojoN.SierpowskaJ.FrançoisC.. . . AltenmüllerE. (2016). Structural neuroplasticity in expert pianists depends on the age of musical training onset. NeuroImage, 126, 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.11.008
58.
WalkerP.BremnerJ. G.MasonU.SpringJ.MattockK.SlaterA.JohnsonS. P. (2010). Preverbal infants’ sensitivity to synaesthetic cross-modality correspondences. Psychological Science, 21(1), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609354734
59.
WarrenJ. E.WiseR. J. S.WarrenJ. D. (2005). Sounds do-able: Auditory-motor transformations and the posterior temporal plane. Trends in Neurosciences, 28(12), 636–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2005.09.010
60.
WeisT.EstnerB.LachmannT. (2016). When speech enhances Spatial Musical Association of Response Codes: Joint spatial associations of pitch and timbre in nonmusicians. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(9), 1687–1700. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1091850
61.
WollmanI.PenhuneV.SegadoM.CarpentierT.ZatorreR. J. (2018). Neural network retuning and neural predictors of learning success associated with cello training. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(26), E6056–E6064. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721414115
62.
ZatorreR. J.ChenJ. L.PenhuneV. B. (2007). When the brain plays music: Auditory-motor interactions in music perception and production. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(7), 547–558. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2152
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.
