schubert, e., & stevens, c. (2006). the effect of implied harmony, contour and musical expertise on...

7/29/2019 Schubert, E., & Stevens, C. (2006). the Effect of Implied Harmony, Contour and Musical Expertise on Judgments o

1/15

This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA]On: 01 May 2013, At: 12:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of New Music ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nnmr20

The effect of implied harmony, contour and musical

expertise on judgments of similarity of familiar

melodiesEmery Schubert

a& Catherine Stevens

b

aSchool of Music and Music Education, University of New South Wales, Australia

bSchool of Psychology & MARCS Auditory Laboratories, University of Western Sydney,

Australia

Published online: 16 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Emery Schubert & Catherine Stevens (2006): The effect of implied harmony, contour and musicalexpertise on judgments of similarity of familiar melodies, Journal of New Music Research, 35:2, 161-174

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09298210600835000

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to

anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09298210600835000http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09298210600835000http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nnmr20


2/15

The Effect of Implied Harmony, Contour and Musical Expertise

on Judgments of Similarity of Familiar Melodies

Emery Schubert1 and Catherine Stevens2

1School of Music and Music Education, University of New South Wales, Australia; 2School of Psychology & MARCS

Auditory Laboratories, University of Western Sydney, Australia

AbstractAccording to Western music theory, familiar melodies

containing alterations which shift them a long distance

(harmonically) from the original should be considered

perceptually dissimilar relative to the original. It is

possible to obtain such a large shift with a small change

in melodic pitch. However, this creates a paradox with

pitch (contour) shifting, which is known to reduce

similarity minimally if the distance from the original is

small. We investigated the hypotheses that (1) manip-

ulations to contour and implied harmony of an original

melody reduce similarity scores and (2) novices are less

sensitive to implied harmony changes than experts, butas sensitive as experts to contour manipulations.

Twenty-eight novices and 44 expert musicians rated

similarity of familiar nursery rhyme tunes compared

with close and distant harmonic transformations plus

close and distant pitch shifts. Results indicated that

both groups use contour (pitch distance) to determine

similarity, but that musically experienced listeners also

use implied harmony to make further distinctions. It is

argued that as listeners become more experienced, they

rely on more sophisticated strategies for encoding and

organizing melodies in memory, with deeper structural

aspects of music being used when other strategies such

as contour are uninformative or non-distinctive. Thesenew findings, that contour and harmony affect judged

similarity for simple, familiar melodies, have implica-

tions for theories of memory for music, and for the

design of automated music retrieval and data mining

systems.

1. IntroductionThe study of perceived melodic similarity provides

psychologists with information about how the brain

processes, stores and retrieves musical information.

Studies of perceived melodic similarity are also impor-

tant for search and retrieval systems (Kim et al. 2000;

Byrd & Crawford, 2002; Zhu & Kankanhalli, 2002),

compression algorithms (e.g. Hofmann-Engl, 2001), and

to further our understanding of processes involved in

perceiving theme and variations and recognizing music

in naturalistic listening settings (Deliege, 2001; Lamont &

Dibben, 2001; McAdams & Matzkin, 2001).

If a presentation of Melody A is rated as being similarto, or confused with (Dowling & Bartlett, 1981), a

different Melody B then we can assume that the features

that differ across the two melodies have been assimilated

into the same melodic schemata activated in long-term

memory. One melody contains some kind of perceptual

redundancy with respect to the other melody. In other

words, the study of melodic similarity asks how

physically different a melody must be before it no longer

bears perceptual equivalence to its original form (e.g. see

McAdams & Matzkin, 2001). However, the study of the

phenomenon is complicated by factors such as individual

differences, and the selection and definition of the

independent variables. Regarding the former, can weassume that all listeners will judge two melodies as being

dissimilar by roughly the same amount? Regarding the

latter, should surface structures be investigated, such as

pitch and rhythm variations, or deeper structure, such as

the harmony implied by a melodic progression or

Correspondence : Emery Schubert, School of Music and Music Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052 NSW,

Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of New Music Research

2006, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 161 174

DOI: 10.1080/09298210600835000 2006 Taylor & Francis


3/15

structural landmarks (for a discussion and definition of

surface and deep structure, see Lamont & Dibben, 2001)?

This paper examines some of these issues, and identifies

and investigates an apparent paradoxical effect of

harmony and contour upon judgment of perceptual

similarity.

2. Individual differences and melody familiarity

Judgement of melodic similarity is neither objective nor

universal. Many factors come in to play when we ask

How similar is Melody A to Melody B?. One factor is

the listeners familiarity with the melodic material

(Welker 1982; Halpern, 1984a,b, 1989; Jones et al.

1987; McAdams & Matzkin, 2001). Dowling (1988)

found that children younger than about 3 years retrieve

basic melodic contour information from long-term

memory, but that older children use more specific

pitch-relationship information, facilitating more accurate

retrieval of the melodies from long-term memory (see

also Trehub et al. 1984; Trehub 1990, 2001; Dowling,

1994). However, even in adulthood, contour is still an

important component in cognitive organization of

melodic pitch streams (Dowling, 1994; Levitin, 1999;

Trainor et al. 1999, 2002).

Perceived differences in melodies may also be a

function of listeners aural acuity and experience. It is

common for experimental studies to exercise some

control over this participant factor. The most common

grouping is musician versus non-musician. Yet

studies generally report little or unsurprising differencesbetween these different groups of people. In general, the

differences might be traced back to familiarity with

materials, a likely feature of the musician group.

Greater familiarity with a tune or the rules of the tunes

genre should allow greater amounts of information to be

stored in memory and the use of more sophisticated

problem solving strategies (Anderson & Schooler, 2000;

Ericsson, 2003), facilitating accurate judgment. Perhaps

experienced musicians have a better understanding of

deep level musical structure than less experienced

musicians. Much of the literature examines responses

to surface level manipulations (such as pitch, contour

and rhythm). It is relevant, therefore, to investigate andcompare differences between the processing of so-called

deeper structures by musicians and non-musicians

(Lamont & Dibben, 2001).

3. The effect of musical features on perceivedsimilarity

What musical parameter manipulations lead to perceived

dissimilarity? Cambouropoulos (2000) notes that musical

context can affect judgments of the similarity of auditory

patterns. Levitin (1999) proposed that transformations in

timbre, pitch, loudness, spatial location, starting pitch

(or transposition Van Egmond & Povel, 1996),

reverberation and tempo across a melodic transforma-

tion, in general, do not affect the identity of a melody. He

argues that rhythmic changes can have an effect but are

generally not strong. However, the pattern of ups anddowns in pitch have a significant effect on judged

similarity. The related issues of melodic contour and

implied harmony are the main focus of the present

investigation of melodic similarity.

3.1 Melodic contour

A number of definitions for melodic contour exist in the

literature. Edworthy (1985) summarizes them as

. . . ranging from a global description of the predominant

configuration of a musical theme . . . to a specific, note-by-

note representation of a melodic sequence taking into

account both interval size and direction of melodic move-

ment between adjacent notes. A midpoint between these

levels of analysis exists whereby contour is defined as a

sequence of ups and downs in a melody or tone sequence,

independent of precise interval size (pp. 375 376).

Edworthys midpoint definition is typical of those

reported in subsequent literature. However describing

contour as patterns of ups and downs can be

misleading because a contour is a line representing a

body or figure the information about the outline of the

pattern is retained (see Schoenberg, 1967 for examples ofthis detailed kind of contour). In contrast, the commonly

used definition of contour described by Edworthy is

information reduced. Patterns of ups and downs capture

melodic direction, and not the finer detail of the actual

contour drawn out by the pattern of pitches over time

(e.g. see Welker 1982). In fact, when comparing a melody

with respect to another, the keep the contour same

method produces no change in the comparison melody,

making melodic direction have only two codable values

for testing up and down. This is different to melodic

displacement, where the distance of the notes (chroma)

from the source melody is what becomes coded (for

example, in units of semitones). An increased movementaway from the original source note leads to an increase in

displacement, regardless of direction. Therefore, we

propose that what has been referred to in some literature

as melodic contour is, more accurately, melodic direction,

and that definitions which embrace multilevel positioning

away from a reference point refer to melodic displace-

ment (or distance)1.

1In this paper we therefore use the term pitch displacement as

a subset of contour.

162 Emery Schubert and Catherine Stevens


4/15

Kim et al. (2002) discuss various coding resolutions

comparing simple directional coding (up, down, same)

with five and seven level representations. Seven level

displacement allows a higher degree of resolution to be

coded in a test melody with respect to the original, as

shown in Figure 1. In practice only 6 levels are relevant in a

comparison task because the same/no-change condition isthe original source melody against which the comparison is

made (as shown in the horizontal centre of the figure). In

the figure there are three levels of displacement coded in the

test melody (3 being a large displacement, 1 being

small), and the sign indicates the direction of the change

(7 for changes in opposite direction with respect to

original note-to-note transitions, for changes in the

same direction with respect to original note-to-note

transitions). The Kim et al. study was an examination of

the physical differences and algorithmic efficiency of the

different methods and concluded that five level contour

produced an optimal compromise between the efficiency of

three level coding, and the robustness of seven level coding.

In the present study the coding of contour is an

important issue. It is possible to manipulate implied

harmony (discussed below) such that its theoretical effect

upon similarity is in opposition to the effect of contour.

For example, consider the situation where a test melody is

compared with a melody stored in memory. Contour

changes using the displacement definition are known to

degrade perceived similarity. This can be represented

visually as shown in Figure 1. With no change in physical

contour, a high similarity rating is provided. However, as

the melodic pitch shape is changed, similarity scores

reduce. When the melody is changed such that the size ofmelodic steps and leaps are increased with respect to the

original, the similarity judgements decline, as shown in the

right half of Figure 1. When the direction of a step or leap

is changed, and the amount of this change is increased, this

too is associated with a decrease in perceived similarity, as

shown in the left half of Figure 1. This approach allows a

fairly simple means of quantifying change because the

difference (in semitones) of each note of a test melody(compared with the corresponding note of the original) can

be calculated. These differences are then converted into a

single standard deviation score that quantifies how

different the contour of the test melody is from the original.

3.2 Implied harmony

To a Western listener, a melody that conforms to the

conventions of Western tonal music is more than a

collection of pitches and note durations. For example,

Bigand (1993) points out that the notation represents a

complex network of tension and relaxation (p. 51) and

Povel and Jansen argue that harmonic relations

between consecutive tones play an important role in the

perception of music (Jansen & Povel, 2004b, p. 47).

Dowlings studies of contour (e.g. Dowling, 1978, 1991;

Dowling & Bartlett, 1981; Bartlett & Dowling, 1988)

suggest that scale structure is an important aspect of

melodic organization, and this has been supported in

studies by Povel and Jansen (Povel & Jansen, 2002;

Jansen & Povel, 2004a, 2004b). Alterations to a melody

that maintain the scale structure are considered more

similar than those in which scale structure is violated.

For example, if a piece is in C major, changing each g to

a g# violates the expectation of diatonic (within-key)notes being used. This produces lower liking scores

Fig. 1. Theoretical representation of the effect of contour (melodic displacement) variation upon similarity judgement. As the average

of consecutive pitch distance increases with respect to the original melody, similarity decreases, whether the changes are in the same

direction as the original transition (right side) or the opposite direction (left side).

Implied harmony, contour and expertise 163


5/15

(Cross et al. 1983), lower goodness ratings (Krumhansl &

Keil, 1982; Povel & Jansen, 2002), sounds more funny

(Dowling, 1988), and is more noticeable (Dowling, 1978).

Bartlett & Dowling (1988) proposed several explanations

for why this deviation from the diatonic scale produced

such results. For the purpose of studying similarity,

deviation from the diatonic may present only a generalexplanation of why foreign notes disrupt a melody.

According to this paradigm, any non-diatonic (out-of-key

or chromatic) transformation should affect similarity.

However, what would happen if a diatonic note was

substituted for the original such as an a in place of a g

(assuming we are in the key of C major, to which both g

and a belong), instead of a g#? The story then becomes

more complex. Western music theory allows us to

determine whether the a is harmonically related to the

original note (e.g. see Krumhansl, 1990). More specifi-

cally, non-diatonic (chromatic) pitch substitutions in a

melody are less likely to fulfill the requirements of the

harmony implied by the melody in question. If this were

the case perceptually, it would provide evidence that

melodic information, particularly of veridical or stylistic

familiarity, is stored not just as a collection of contours,

pitches and rhythms, but also as a web of harmonic

implications. That is, harmonic structure is abstracted by

the listener. Such a notion is supported in experiments by

Tan et al. (1981) and Bharuchas neural network model of

music perception (see Bharucha and Krumhansl, 1983;

Tillmann et al. 2000) and several more recent studies

(Tillmann et al. 2000; Povel & Jansen, 2002; Jansen &

Povel, 2004a; Tillmann & Bigand, 2004).

Research on perceived melodic similarity has focusedmainly on the parameters of contour or rhythm or both

(e.g. Davidson, 1985; Edworthy, 1985; Carterette et al.

1986; Jones et al. 1987; He bert & Peretz, 1997; Halpern

et al. 1998; Cambouropoulos & Widmer, 2000; Byrd &

Crawford, 2002). In contrast, implied harmony has

received relatively little explicit attention in studies of

melodic similarity (important exceptions are Sloboda &

Parker, 1985; Stoll & Parncutt, 1987; Trainor & Trehub,

1994b; Holleran et al. 1995). It is well understood by

music theorists that Western melodies can be harmonized

so as to support the melody (i.e. make it sound good).

Further, there are a limited number of solutions to the

harmonies that can form appropriate or pleasing accom-paniments to a given melody (Jansen & Povel, 2004b).

The limitation on the number of harmonic solutions

further supports the view that an unaccompanied melody

can be associated with some kind of implied harmony.

4. An implied harmony explanation of perceivedmelodic similarity

Implied harmony, therefore, should provide a further

constraint upon judgments of melodic similarity.

Consider the final two notes (b, c) of a melody in C

major that imply dominant to tonic harmony. Altera-

tions to such a melody within the implied harmonic

constraint should be more similar than other changes.

Any of the chord tones of the dominant G could be used

to substitute for the b (that is, d or g), and any chord

tones in C could be used to substitute for the c (i.e. e or g)to produce a similar melodic effect (compared with non-

chord tone replacements, such as the within-key and out-

of-key replacements discussed above). If any of the

melodic notes are chosen outside the implied harmony,

the result should be a more dissimilar melody. This

hypothesis is foreshadowed in results reported by Stoll

and Parncutt (1987), Sloboda and Parker (1985),

Holleran et al. (1995) and Trainor and Trehub (1994b).

These results also suggest that musically experienced

listeners use harmonic structure in melody cognition

whereas inexperienced listeners may not.

It appears that implied harmony plays some role in

determining similarity in Western tonal music, and that it

is a more important factor for musically skilled listeners.

What we do not know is how implied harmony and

contour interact in judgments of similarity.

Implied harmony is a complex concept because it does

not provide unique solutions for harmonic expectations

(unlike melodic displacement) several different harmo-

nies can sometimes be used to make the same melody

sound good or pleasing. As Benward and White (1997)

remark, while there is some leeway in the selection of

chords, a certain standard of musical communica-

tion . . . prevents you from exercising complete freedom

(p. 194).

5. Pitch displacement harmonic distanceparadox

Music theoretic assumptions and empirical literature

about implied harmony can lead to predictions of

similarity judgments that conflict with predictions

derived from the effects of melodic displacement.

According to the melodic displacement perspective, the

smallest shift of a semitone in a melody with respect to

the original would produce the smallest change in

contour distance. Hence there should be little change insimilarity. However, this same shift can produce a large

(chromatic or out-of-key) departure from the implied

harmony of the original melody (see Krumhansl, 1990).

From this perspective, the clash against the implied

harmony of the original should reduce the similarity

rating. A shift by another semitone might produce a

pitch which is diatonically (within-key) different from the

implied harmony of the original. In this case the

transformed stimulus is harmonically closer than for

the first semitone change to the harmony implied by the

original, even though the melodic distance from the



6/15

original has increased. The theoretical similarity response

would then appear as shown in Figure 2. In the figure,

the 3 refers to a distant harmony compared to the

original, the 2 a diatonic shift (close key) and 1

refers to a different note from the same implied harmony

as the original. The profile is in conflict with the

theoretical contour profile (Figure 1). The effect may bethat the two influences are additive and cancel each

other. Therefore, it is appropriate to examine each

variable level against all other variable levels (i.e. a full

factorial design).

The present study, investigates the pitch displacement

harmonic distance paradox. It differs in several ways

from previous research that has examined the effect of

implied harmony upon melodies. First, both contour and

harmonic distance are manipulated. Second, we use

familiar melodies, in case this provides less experienced

musicians with an increased capacity to use implied

harmony information. This approach also makes the

comparative task simpler because the listener has the

original tune in memory a priori. Third, we manipulate

groups of notes rather than single target notes. Fourth,

we ask listeners to make comparisons with their long-

term memory of the melody, rather than making a direct

comparison or after a tune-learning phase. We believe

that this might help to mitigate possible confounds due

to short-term memory strategies, and therefore provide

access to tonal schemata that are used in more typical

listening situations (where short-term memory strategies

are not a central part of the cognitive organization of the

music). Finally, we investigate three levels of harmony

(most studies only examine two within chord and out-

of chord manipulations), although within-harmony

changes are analysed separately. Since same-harmonychanges will often require relatively large interval shifts

(generally greater than or equal to a minor third), it is

possible that a confounding variable of disrupted

melodic expectation will also be manipulated (for

example, an expectation of close proximity in melody is

changed to a lack of proximity for more information

see Narmour, 1990; Schellenberg, 1997; Huron, 2001;

Margulis, 2003). That is, a shift in pitch that maintains

the harmony of the original will usually require a

minimum of a chordal skip (an interval of a 3rd or a

4th). So there may be cases when it is not possible to have

a small change in contour with a no-change-in-

harmony condition, apart from the original melody.

To minimize this constraint, the same harmony condition

is not considered in the main factorial design, but will be

reported separately.

The hypotheses were that (1) deviations in implied

harmony and in pitch displacement contour reduce

similarity and (2) inexperienced musicians are relatively

less sensitive to changes in implied harmony than

Fig. 2. Theoretical similarity perception due to harmony (assuming implied harmony dominates response). When the consecutive pitch

distance increases by only one semitone (small pitch displacement), in some cases the harmonic distance with respect to the original

suddenly becomes large, and hence reduces similarity. It is therefore possible to increase the pitch displacement so as to, at the same

time, decrease the harmonic distance and hence increase similarity, in contrast to Figure 1.



7/15

experienced musicians. Pitch displacement and harmonic

distance were both within-subject variables and musical

expertise a between-subjects variable. The dependent

variable was perceived similarity.

6. Method

6.1 Participants

Seventy-two students were recruited from the School of

Psychology at the University of Western Sydney and the

School of Music and Music Education at the University

of New South Wales. Based on a survey, two groups were

formed: Those who reported having lessons on an

instrument greater than 9 years were placed in the

expert group. Those with less than 1 year formal

training in music were placed in the novice group.

There were 44 (mean age 21.1 years, SD 4.7, youngest

17, oldest 42, 12 males, 32 females) and 28 (mean age

22.4 years, SD 8.3, youngest 18, oldest 55, 8 males, 20

females) participants in the expert and novice groups,

respectively.

6.2 Stimuli

Nursery rhyme tunes were selected which were thought

to be highly familiar to most participants: London

Bridge is Falling Down, Mary had a Little Lamb, This

Old Man and Lightly Row.

In Stage 1 (see Section 6.4), the four untransformed

melodies were used. For Stage 2 of the experiment, the

melodies were transformed by harmony and pitchdisplacement. In each case, the opening bar (measure)

remained the same as the original to provide a cue for

activating the memory of the tune and to provide a

harmonic frame of reference for the experimentally

manipulated notes. Other sections were altered unless

the opening bar was repeated (as might occur in a second

musical phrase).

The Appendix shows each of the original melodies and

their transformations. The chord labels above each

system provide examples of implied harmony solutions

for the same-harmony conditions and against which the

close and distant harmony conditions would be pitted

where possible. As discussed in Sections 3.2 and 4,several harmonizations are possible for the original

melodies. For the present study, the template harmo-

nization was selected from the three primary triads

(tonic, dominant and subdominant), providing a simple

approach for harmonizing simple melodies. This solution

was checked and agreed to by an experienced Lecturer in

harmony. Stimuli were organized such that variations in

melodic displacement from the original stimulus were

more-or-less independent of variations in harmony.

Initially, implied harmony had three values: same, close

and distant. For example, consider Lightly Row, the first

melody shown in the Appendix. The original melody

notes were substituted by chord tones from the original

implied harmony in certain sections of the test melodies

(bar 3 to 4 and bar 7 on lines 3 to 5 in the case of Lightly

Row). This transformation required some relatively large

leaps for the same harmony transformation (line 3).

Most changes required an alteration of an interval of athird or fourth (3 to 5 semitones), setting the lower limit

of possible corresponding pitch displacement variations

(that is, they can often be displaced by no less than 3

semitones). In the close-harmony condition the notes

could be selected so as to be non-implied harmony notes,

but with a diatonic shift (that is, another note from the

same scale within-key, but not from the same

harmony). The distant-harmony condition could be, and

on some occasions was, achieved by a semitone shift, so

as to select notes that are not only non-chord tones, but

also harmonically weakly related to the original (out-of-

key), more weakly than the diatonic shift of the close-

harmony condition. While same-harmony alterations

were restricted to chord tones, only relatively distal

transformations in pitch were possible on most occa-

sions. However, the other two levels of harmony

manipulations could be more varied. Therefore, to

maintain a factorial design same-harmony manipulations

were analysed separately.

With this variation, two levels of pitch displacement

from the original were produced for close and distant

harmony conditions: proximal (where pitch transitions

were kept close to the original) and distal (where pitches

in the transformation were shifted further with respect to

the original). To ensure a large change in pitch contourfor the distal conditions, the direction of the melody was

changed where possible. Notice, for example, in the bot-

tom two lines of Lightly Row (shown in the Appendix)

that in the treated bars (3 to 4 and 7) the melody

descends, in opposition to the original melody direction.

The distances of the transformations were checked by

calculating the sum of the deviations between each note

of the original and the corresponding note of the

transformed melody (in units of semitones). This value

was standardized for each transformation by dividing by

the number of notes in the piece enabling comparison of

pitch displacement across stimuli. The values are shown

at the end of each line of the Appendix.Tempi and key (starting pitch) were not randomized in

the screening stage. In Stage 2, two random variables

were introduced to reduce the chance of participants

relating the test stimuli in Stage 2 to the tempo and key

of the screening (original) stimuli used in Stage 1 (see

Section 6.4). Small variations in tempo (+10 beats per

minute) about the original, and a random key (starting

note) between 5 and76 semitones of the original were

chosen for each stimulus to minimize artefactual

comparison of similarity with tempo and absolute key

with Stage 1 presentations. For each example, a



8/15

marimba timbre was used and the nominal tempo was

set to 100 quarter beats per minute for Lightly Row,

London Bridge and This Old Man, and 120 quarter beats

for Mary Had a Little Lamb. The nominal key was set to

C major.

Therefore, for each melody, there were six presenta-

tions investigated in Stage 2 (the original melodycompared with itself, the same-harmony change, and

the 262 harmony by contour manipulations). Up to 4

melodies were selected from Stage 1, and therefore up to

24 stimuli were rated in Stage 2. Additional stimuli

were rated but are not reported here.

6.3 Equipment

The stimuli were presented to individual participants

using software written by the first author and presented

on Power Macintosh 8500 computers. The melodies were

played using a sampled marimba sound. All auditory

stimuli were played over stereo headphones at a

comfortable listening level.

6.4 Procedure

Participants sat at a computer that recorded background

information before commencing the experiment. The

experiment was conducted in two stages: screening and

testing. The first (screening) stage was used to ensure

that participants were familiar with each of the test

melodies. If they were unfamiliar with a melody, it was

deleted from the test stage. If they indicated familiarity

with the excerpt (Very Familiar or Familiar) theywere asked to select the name of the piece. This label

would be used in the second stage of the study. If the

participant selected a not sure option, the tune was

eliminated from the test stage.

In Stage 2 (testing) the participant was asked to think

about one of the melodies selected in Stage 1. The tune to

think about was prompted by the computer: Imagine

the original tune [name of tune as indicated by

participant in Stage 1]. How similar is the tune to the

original?. The latter sentence pointed to a Play

button which the participant clicked using the mouse to

commence hearing the test stimulus melody. The piece

to think about stimulus to be played combination

was selected in random order without replacement.

When the participant was ready, they pressed a play

button. The participant would then rate the similarity ofthe test stimulus with the one they were asked to imagine.

The response scale indicated similarity as a percentage

(visually represented scale) from 0 to 100% (with 100%

labelled identical). They were encouraged to give their

first impressions, and were allowed to relisten up to four

times. The experiment lasted 25 to 30 min.

7. Results

Similarity scores were averaged across each piece for each

factor level. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted

using the 262 within-subject factors, harmony and pitch-

displacement, and one between-subject factor, skill (novice

versus expert). There was a significant main effect for pitch-

displacement (F[1,70] 148.03 p50.001), but not for

harmony (F[1,70] 2.121 p 0.15), as shown in Table 1.

There were significant interactions for skill with harmony

(F[1,70] 12.172 p 0.001), and skill with pitch-displace-

ment (F[1,70] 15.568 p50.001). These two interactions

can be interpreted by examining the four plots to the right

of each pane of Figure 3. Novices rated proximal pitch

shifts as more similar to the original than distal trans-

formations (percentage similarity rating M 60.2%

SD 2.37% and M 41.39%, SD 2.33% respectively),regardless of the implied harmony relationship. Expert

musicians also rated proximal transformations as being

more similar than distal transformations, but to a lesser

extent (M 53.14% SD 1.89% and M 43.51%,

SD 1.86% respectively). However, expert musicians

made further distinctions in similarity which corresponded

to the implied harmony manipulations. Each level of the

262 factors (harmony, pitch displacement) produced a

significant difference which, from most similar to least,

Table 1. Pairwise comparisons of similarity response for harmony and contour by skill.

Skill level Mean difference Std. Sig.(a)

95% Confidence interval for

differenceb

HARMONY Lower bound Upper bound

Novice Close Distant 71.922 1.478 0.198 74.87 1.026

Expert Close Distant 4.676a 1.179 0 2.324 7.027

CONTOUR Lower bound Upper bound

Novice Proximal Distal 18.858a 1.83 0 15.208 22.508

Expert Proximal Distal 9.622a 1.46 0 6.711 12.534

aSignificant at p 0.05.bAdjusted for multiple comparisons: least significant difference.



9/15

were close-proximal, distant-proximal, close-distal, dis-

tant-distal, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 also shows the mean response to ratings of

the original melody by level of expertise. The results

are collapsed across the random tempo and starting

note (key) levels. The results demonstrate higher

similarity of ratings of original melodies by the musical

expert group (M 95.2%, SE 0.665%) compared

with the novice group (M 85.85%, SE 1.956%).

The experts seemed to reach a ceiling, hence the small

standard error.

Finally, responses to within harmony changes were

examined. As shown in Figure 3, changing only the

harmony note (that is, making pitch more distal with

respect to original without changing harmony) produced

a drop in similarity scores for both experts (M 51.61%,

SE 1.23%) and novices (M 54.23%, SE 1.97%).

Although similarity scores obtained from novices are

slightly higher than experts for same-harmony manip-

ulation, the pitch shift factor alone demonstrates a trend

for the novices which can be wholly determined by

contour, which is, in decreasing order of similarity:

Fig. 3. Perceived similarity by implied harmony and contour for experts and novices. The y axis indicates average perceived similarity

percentage. Novice n 28; Expert n 44. Error bar is +1 SE.



10/15

proximal contour shift, within harmony change (which

constitutes a contour shift in between proximal and

distal) and distal contour shift. For the expert group, a

rough equivalence or trade-off can be seen between the

same harmony condition and proximal contour-distant

harmony condition. These findings reinforce the notion

that novices almost ignore the influence of impliedharmony upon similarity judgements, whereas for music

experts the two factors have some interplay, with

contour, nevertheless, being the dominating factor.

8. Discussion and conclusion

Consistent with previous literature, the results suggest

that melodic contour plays a major role in the organiza-

tion of melodies in long-term memory, and more so than

deeper level implied harmony, supporting Lamont and

Dibbens (2001) finding that contour (surface structure)

seems to be more important in determining similarity

than deeper structure (in this case, implied harmonic

relationships). In addition, the experiment demonstrates

utility in investigating contour as a displacement with

respect to its difference (in semitones) from a memorized

melody. The greater the displacement of a melody from

the source melody, the greater the difference in perceived

similarity. The experiment indicates that implied har-

mony plays a secondary role, if any, in determining

similarity, and that the information is used by more

experienced musicians in agreement with Holleran et al.

(1995). The results of the Holleran et al. study can be

further refined based on the data of the present study.First, for musically experienced individuals, diatonic

(close harmony) and chromatic (distant harmony)

changes produced some perceptual alterations of the

melody. Consistent with music theory, distant harmony

shifts are considered more different than are close

harmony shifts with respect to the original melody. This

finding is also consistent with that of Massaro et al. (1980)

and Trainor and Trehub (1994b). Second, Holleran et al.

reported that less experienced musicians are still influ-

enced by implied harmony but to a lesser extent than

highly skilled musicians. In their study, the low-skilled

listeners had at least 5 years of formal musical training. In

our experiment, the novices had one year or less formalmusical training. This suggests that there may be some

kind of sliding scale in the use of implied harmony

information, where novices use little of this information

in determining the similarity of two melodies.

The present study also extends previous findings to

melodies stored in long-term memory, and not just

specially composed melodies directly compared with their

modifications (Holleran et al. 1995; Trainor & Trehub,

1994b), or less familiar melodies (Sloboda & Parker,

1985). Further, it has examined the factors of contour and

harmony manipulations and their interaction.

The overlapping similarity ratings for the distant and

close harmony conditions could be taken to imply that

novice listeners are unable to make fine distinctions

between within-key (diatonic) and out-of-key (chromatic)

changes. The data suggest that for novice listeners, all

dissonances are equal. However, the within-chord (same-

harmony) change is rated slightly lower in similarity thanthe proximal pitch shift condition, meaning that even

when the alteration produces greater consonance, the

response still has a lower similarity rating. Two explana-

tions of this result are proposed. (1) Harmonic distance

for novices is a red herring, and imposes no systematic

alteration of similarity judgments (dissonance is dis-

sonance), or (2) there is a third variable, which could not

be controlled in the within-chord change of the current

study namely voice leading which might cause an

artificial lowering of similarity scores. Indeed, the at-

times unusual leaps introduced in the same-harmony

condition could have been responsible for the drop in

similarity, masking the effect of harmonic distance.

Further research is required to determine which explana-

tion holds. It may also be worth investigating whether

these effects are peculiar to the simple pieces chosen, or

whether they generalize to more complex kinds of music

(such as those using chromaticism and modulation) where

the question of harmonization itself becomes still more

complex. The question of whether implied harmony

would assume a more or less important role in judgements

of similarity in other contexts becomes quite interesting.

The lower similarity rating of the original melody

compared with the memory of the original melody for

the novices is an anomalous finding which is consistentwith Holleran et al. (1995). Since tempo and key were

varied in the present experiment, it would make sense to

predict that listeners with good pitch and tempo memory

(represented by the expert group) might provide lower

similarity ratings for the original stimuli with altered

tempi and keys. The reverse was the case. It might be that

novices are less confident in identifying precise matching

because they are less able to maintain as precise a

representation of the melody under investigation. It

might also be that expert listeners are more willing to

assimilate features of a melody which are well conserved

under transformation, such as starting note (key) and

tempo (Levitin, 1999). In fact, it is also conceivable thatnovice listeners may have quite good pitch memory

(Schellenberg & Trehub, 2003), and may be more

sensitized to these effects. This issue is a point for further

investigation.

The results present a dilemma in that the prediction

derived from music theory seems to apply to experienced

musicians, rather than the general, enculturated popula-

tion. For example, since adults have more experience, they

should be more likely to use implied harmony to help

organize melodic material than would children. Trainor &

Trehub (1994a) reported that by the age of 7 years children



11/15

were responding at about the same level as adult

(mostly novice) listeners in their use of implied harmony

information (see also Costa-Giomi, 2003). The question

then remains: Do musicians develop a strategy for

detecting dissimilarity? If so, the present study may be

detecting nothing more than a pre-conditioned response,

or a more complete enculturation of the rules of harmony.In post-experiment surveys there was no evidence to

support the notion that musically experienced participants

were using any conscious strategy that related to harmonic

relationships. It seems that the difference between musician

and non-musician is a consequence of training and a more

thoroughly absorbed internalization of harmonic relation-

ships and expectancies. It suggests that deeper level

structures in music may be defined in terms of encultura-

tion. Ultimately, the implication of this finding for melodic

system retrieval and for cognitive architecture is that there

are important individual differences, particularly among

novice and expert musicians, in the way musical informa-

tion is retained and retrieved.

The present findings also have application to the

development of automated retrieval systems in that they

suggest the need for an additional level of complexity in

designing such systems, one which accounts for the

underlying harmony of the melodic information. While a

semitone shift in some parts of a familiar melody may

not violate the contour of the melody, it will clash with

the expected harmonic flow (Jansen & Povel, 2004b;

Povel & Jansen, 2002), and may be considered less

similar than its seed if an experienced listener is being

modelled or simulated. Modifications to models such as

those discussed by Kim et al. (2000) and Holleran et al.(1995, p. 739) may require a musical experience input

level. If future research supports the relative importance

of the role of harmonic structure with respect to contour

in the organization of melodic material, algorithms such

as those proposed by Krumhansl (1990) for measuring

key-distance, Lerdahl (1996, 2001) for measuring tonal

tension, and Jansen and Povels (2004b) on-line harmo-

nic processing model may prove useful in providing

information retrieval systems with resources for identify-

ing harmonic relationships implied in melodies.

The reason for the greater reliance on harmony

information by experienced listeners may be due to the

development of more analytic listening and featureextraction and feature weighting processes. However, it

may also be an effect of efficient memory strategies. If

experienced listeners have much musical material to

store, process and retrieve, they require more refined

strategies, such as chunking, for organizing this large

amount of information (e.g. Ericsson, 2003; Ericsson &

Delaney, 1999; McAuley et al. 2004). The simplest,

directional contour coding strategy would be of little use

if the number of melodies requiring storage and

processing becomes very large (see Kim et al. 2000).

Some psychologically different melodies will even-

tually be found which may have identical direction

contours and, as the number increases even further,

displacement information may also be insufficient. Thus

alternative strategies may emerge, such as attending to

harmonic implication. Experts are likely to have flex-

ibility in global or analytic strategies depending on task,

instructions and context. Novices are more limited inavailable strategies and cognitive resources. Future work

is required to determine whether novices are insensitive

to implied harmony, or whether they simply do not use

their implicit knowledge of it. Infant sensitivity to out-of-

harmony changes (Trainor & Trehub, 1992) suggests that

infants and adults do encode harmonic information. By

building on this finding, the present study suggests that

novice listeners may encode this information but cannot

or do not use it to the same extent as highly skilled

musicians.

AcknowledgmentThis research was supported by a University of Western

Sydney Research Encouragement Grant awarded to the

second author. We are grateful to Colin Watts from the

School of Music and Music Education at the University

of New South Wales for his assistance in the preparation

of the musical examples and to Melinda Gallagher for

assistance with data collection.

References

Anderson, J.R. & Schooler, L.J. (2000). The adaptive nature

of memory. In E. Tulving and F.I.M. Craik (Eds.)Handbook of Memory, pp. 557 570. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Bartlett, J.C. & Dowling, W.J. (1988). Scale structure and

similarity of melodies. Music Perception, 5, 285 314.

Benward, B. and White, G. (1997). Music in Theory and Prac-

tice, Vol. 1, 6th Edn. Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark.

Bharucha, J.J. & Krumhansl, C.L. (1983). The represen-

tation of harmonic structure in music: hierarchies

of stability as a function of context. Cognition, 13, 63

102.

Bigand, E. (1993). Abstraction of two forms of underlying

structure in a tonal melody. Psychology of Music, 18,

4559.

Byrd, D. & Crawford, C. (2002). Problems of music infor-

mation retrieval in the real world. Information Processing

& Management, 38, 249 272.

Cambouropoulos, E. (2000). Melodic cue abstraction,

similarity and category formation: a computational

approach. Retrieved 1 August 2003 from http://citeseer.

nj.nec.com/cambouropoulos00melodic.html

Cambouropoulos, E. & Widmer, G. (2000). Melodic

clustering: motivic analysis of Schumanns Trumerei.

Paper presented at Proceedings of the III Journes d

Informatique Musicale, Bordeaux, France. Retreived 15

July 2003 from http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/423201.html



12/15

Carterette, E.C., Kohl, D.V., & Pitt, M.A. (1986). Simila-

rities among transformed melodies: the abstraction of

invariants. Music Perception, 3, 393 410.

Costa-Giomi, E. (2003). Young childrens harmonic percep-

tion. Neurosciences & Music, 999, 477 484.

Cross, I., Howell, P., & West, R. (1983). Preferences for

scale structure in melodic sequences. Journal of Experi-mental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,

9(3), 444 460.

Davidson, L. (1985). Tonal structures of childrens early

songs. Music Perception, 2, 361 374.

Deliege, I. (2001). Introduction: similarity perception 54

categorization 54 cue abstraction. Music Perception,

18, 233 243.

Dowling, W. (1978). Scale and contour: two components of

a theory of memory for melodies. Psychological Review,

85(4), 341 354.

Dowling, W.J. (1988). Tonal structure and childrens early

learning of music, In J.A. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative

Processes in Music, pp. 113 128. Oxford: ClarendonPress.

Dowling, W.J. (1991). Tonal strength and melody recogni-

tion after long and short delays. Perception and Psycho-

physics, 50, 305 313.

Dowling, W. (1994). Melodic contour in hearing and

remembering melodies. In R. Aiello & J. A. Sloboda

(Eds.), Musical Perceptions. pp. 173 190. London:

Oxford University Press.

Dowling W.J. & Bartlett, J.C. (1981). The importance of

interval information in long-term memory for melodies.

Psychomusicology, 1, 30 49.

Edworthy, J. (1985). Interval and contour in melody

processing. Music Perception, 2, 375 388.

Ericsson, K.A. (2003). Exceptional memorizers: made, not

born. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 233 235.

Ericsson, K.A. & Delaney, P.F. (1999). Long-term

working memory as an alternative to capacity models of

working memory in everyday skilled performance. In

A. Miyake and P. Shah (Eds.), Models of Working

Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Execu-

tive Control, pp. 257 297. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Halpern, A.R. (1984a). Organization in memory for familiar

songs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,

Memory, and Cognition, 10, 496 512.

Halpern, A.R. (1984b). Perception of structure in novel

music. Memory and Cognition, 12, 163 170.Halpern, A.R. (1989). Memory for the absolute pitch

of familiar songs. Memory and Cognition, 17, 572

581.

Halpern A.R., Bartlett J.C. & Dowling W.J. (1998).

Perception of mode, rhythm, and contour in unfamiliar

melodies: effects of age and experience. Music Perception,

15, 335 355.

He bert, S. & Peretz, I. (1997). Recognition of music in

long-term memory: are melodic and temporal

patterns equal partners? Memory & Cognition, 25, 518

533.

Hofmann-Engl, L. (2001). Towards a cognitive model of

melodic similarity. In J.S. Downie and D. Bainbridge

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Annual International

Symposium on Music Information Retrieval, pp. 143

151. Retrieved 15 June 2003 from http://ismir2001.

ismir.net/pdf/hofmann-engl.pdf

Holleran, S., Jones, M.R. & Butler, D. (1995). Perceivingimplied harmony: the influence of melodic and harmonic

context. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning

Memory & Cognition, 21(3), 737 753.

Huron, D. (2001). Tone and voice: a derivation of the rules

of voice-leading from perceptual principles. Music

Perception, 19, 1 64.

Jansen, E. & Povel, D.J. (2004a). Perception of arpeggiated

chord progressions. Musicae Scientiae, 8(1), 752.

Jansen, E. & Povel, D.J. (2004b). The processing of chords

in tonal melodic sequences. Journal of New Music

Research, 33(1), 31 48.

Jones, M.R., Summerell, L., & Marshburn, E. (1987).

Recognizing melodies: a dynamic interpretation. Quar-terly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 89121.

Kim, Y.E., Chai, W., Garcia, R. & Vercoe, B. (2000).

Analysis of a contour-based representation for melody.

Retrieved 15 June 2003 from www.media.mit.edu/

chaiwei/papers/Kim.pdf

Krumhansl, C. (1990). Cognitive Foundations of Musical

Pitch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Krumhansl, C.L. & Keil, F.C. (1982). Acquisition of the

hierarchy of tonal functions in music. Memory &

Cognition, 10(3), 243251.

Lamont, A. & Dibben, N. (2001). Motivic structure and the

perception of similarity. Music Perception, 18, 245 274.

Lerdahl, F. (1996). Calculating tonal tension. Music

Perception, 13, 319 363.

Lerdahl, F. (2001). Tonal Pitch Space. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Levitin, D.J. (1999). Memory for musical attributes. In

P.R. Cook (Ed.), Music, Cognition and Computerized

Sound: An Introduction to Psychoacoustics, pp. 209 227.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Margulis, E.H. (2003). Melodic expectation: a discussion

and model. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(4-A),

1127.

Massaro, D.W., Kallman, H.J. & Kelly, J.L. (1980). The

role of tone height, melodic contour, and tone chroma in

melody recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Human Learning and Memory, 6, 77 90.McAdams, S. & Matzkin, D. (2001). Similarity, invariance,

and musical variation. Biological Foundations of Music

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 930, 62 76.

McAuley, J.D., Stevens, C., & Humphreys, M.S. (2004).

Play it again: did this melody occur frequently or was it

heard more recently? The role of stimulus familiarity in

the formation of episodic memories for music. Acta

Psychologica, 116, 93108.

Narmour, E. (1990). The Analysis and Cognition of Basic

Melodic Structures: The Implication-Realization Model.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.



13/15

Povel, D.J. & Jansen, E. (2002). Harmonic factors in the

perception of tonal melodies. Music Perception, 20(1),

5185.

Schellenberg, E.G. (1997). Simplifying the implication-

realization model of melodic expectancy. Music Percep-

tion, 14, 295 318.

Schellenberg, E.G., & Trehub, S.E. (2003). Good pitchmemory is widespread. Psychological Science, 14(3), 262

266.

Schoenberg, A. (1967). In G. Strang (Ed.), with the

collaboration of L. Stein (Ed.). Fundamentals of Musical

Composition. London: Faber.

Sloboda, J.A. & Parker, D.H.H. (1985). Immediate recall of

melodies. In P. Howell, I. Cross & R. West (Eds.), Musical

Structure and Cognition. London: Academic Press.

Stoll, G. & Parncutt, R. (1987). Harmonic relationship in

similarity judgments of nonsimultaneous complex tones.

Acustica, 63(2), 111 119.

Tan, N., Aiello, R., & Bever, T. (1981). Harmonic structure

as a determinant of melodic organization. Memory andCognition, 9, 535 539.

Tillmann, B., Bharucha, J.J., & Bigand, E. (2000). Implicit

learning of tonality: a self-organizing approach. Psycho-

logical Review, 107(4), 885 913.

Tillmann, B. & Bigand, E. (2004). Further investigation of

harmonic priming in long contexts using musical timbre

as surface marker to control for temporal effects.

Perceptual & Motor Skills, 98(2), 450 458.

Trainor, L.J., Desjardins, R. N., & Rockel, C. (1999). A

comparison of contour and interval processing in

musicians and nonmusicians using event-related poten-

tials. Australian Journal of Psychology, 51(3), 147 153.

Trainor, L.J., McDonald, K.L., & Alain, C. (2002). Auto-

matic and controlled processing of melodic contour and

interval information measured by electrical brain activity.

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(3), 430 442.

Trainor, L.J. & Trehub, S.E. (1994a). A comparison of

infants and adults sensitivity to Western musical

structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: HumanPerception and Performance, 18, 394 402.

Trainor, L.J. & Trehub, S.E. (1994b). Key membership and

implied harmony in Western tonal music: developmental

perspectives. Perception and Psychophysics, 56, 125 132.

Trehub, S.E. (1990). Human infants perception of auditory

patterns. International Journal of Comparative Psychol-

ogy, 4, 91110.

Trehub, S.E. (2001). Musical predispositions in infancy. In

R.J. Zatorre & I. Peretz (Eds.), The Biological Founda-

tions of Music, Annals of the New York Academy of

Sciences, 930, 439 442.

Trehub, S.E., Bull, D., & Thorpe, L.A. (1984). Infants

perception of melodies: the role of melodic contour.Child Development, 55, 821 830.

Van Egmond, R., & Povel, D.J.L. (1996). Perceived

similarity of exact and inexact transpositions. Acta

Psychologica, 92, 283 296.

Welker, R.L. (1982). Abstraction of themes from melodic

variations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human

Perception and Performance, 8, 435 447.

Zhu, Y. & Kankanhalli, M. (2002). Similarity matching of

continuous contours for humming querying of melody

databases. LIT Technical Report, February. Retrieved 15

June 2005 from www.comp.nus.edu.sg/cs4241/

TR2002.pdf



14/15

Appendix: Stimuli used in the experiment

Numbers to the right of each line indicate the average

deviation of the pitches with respect to the original (in

units of semitones, or chroma). In the screening stage,

only the original stimulus, shown as the top line, was

used. In the test stage all stimuli were compared against a

participants memory of the tune represented by the

original. An implied harmony solution is shown as chord

labels above the original melody (see text). The braces

below each system indicate the sections of bars in which

test stimuli notes were transformed.



15/15


schubert, e., & stevens, c. (2006). the effect of implied harmony, contour and musical expertise on...

Documents