Action-effect coupling in pianists

Recent theories have stressed the role of effect anticipation in action control. Such a mechanism requires the prior acquisition of integrated action-effect associations. The strength of such associations should directly depend on the amount of learning, and therefore be most pronounced in motor experts. Using an interference paradigm, we investigated whether evidence of such representations can be demonstrated in expert pianists. Participants were required to play chords on a keyboard in response to imperative visual stimuli. Concurrently, task-irrelevant auditory stimuli (“potential” action effects) were presented that were congruent or incongruent with the chords to be played. In Experiment 1 we found evidence that expert pianists, compared with non-musicians, have acquired such action-effects representations. Response times were slower when the auditory stimulus was incongruent with the required response. In order to ascertain the locus of interference, we varied imperative stimuli and responses in Experiments 2 and 3. The results indicate that, for the most part, interference occurs on the response level rather than on an abstract level. However, the perception of action effects also evokes processing of abstract features, like the concept of major–minor mode.

[1]  A. Espinosa,et al.  Estudios sobre el español de Nuevo Méjico@@@Estudios sobre el espanol de Nuevo Mejico , 1932 .

[2]  S. Lederman,et al.  Lateralization for reading musical chords: Disentangling symbolic, analytic, and phonological aspects of reading , 1979, Brain and Language.

[3]  P. Lachenbruch Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[4]  F. Allard,et al.  Chapter 6 Declarative Knowledge in Skilled Motor Performance: Byproduct or Constituent? , 1993 .

[5]  Robert J. Crutcher,et al.  The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. , 1993 .

[6]  S. Kornblum,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Kiyotaka Suzuki,et al.  ‘Musical brain’ revealed by high‐field (3 Tesla) functional MRI , 1998, Neuroreport.

[8]  Rosalee K. Meyer,et al.  Conceptual and Motor Learning in Music Performance , 2000, Psychological science.

[9]  G Aschersleben,et al.  Correspondence effects with manual gestures and postures: a study of imitation. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  W. Prinz,et al.  Compatibility between Observed and Executed Finger Movements: Comparing Symbolic, Spatial, and Imitative Cues , 2000, Brain and Cognition.

[11]  John A. Sloboda,et al.  Individual differences in music performance , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[12]  B. Hommel,et al.  Effect anticipation and action control , 2001 .

[13]  W. Kunde,et al.  Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  Jens Haueisen,et al.  Involuntary Motor Activity in Pianists Evoked by Music Perception , 2001, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[15]  Hartwig R. Siebner,et al.  Linking Actions and Their Perceivable Consequences in the Human Brain , 2002, NeuroImage.

[16]  M. Roth,et al.  An fMRI study of music sight-reading , 2002, Neuroreport.

[17]  I. Koch,et al.  Verbal response-effect compatibility , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[18]  Roger Chaffin,et al.  Practicing Perfection: Piano Performance as Expert Memory , 2002, Psychological science.

[19]  M. Bangert,et al.  Mapping perception to action in piano practice: a longitudinal DC-EEG study , 2003, BMC Neuroscience.