Accessible Digital Musical Instruments—A Review of Musical Interfaces in Inclusive Music Practice

Emma Frid

doi:10.3390/mti3030057

Abstract

Current advancements in music technology enable the creation of customized Digital Musical Instruments (DMIs). This paper presents a systematic review of Accessible Digital Musical Instruments (ADMIs) in inclusive music practice. History of research concerned with facilitating inclusion in music-making is outlined, and current state of developments and trends in the field are discussed. Although the use of music technology in music therapy contexts has attracted more attention in recent years, the topic has been relatively unexplored in Computer Music literature. This review investigates a total of 113 publications focusing on ADMIs. Based on the 83 instruments in this dataset, ten control interface types were identified: tangible controllers, touchless controllers, Brain–Computer Music Interfaces (BCMIs), adapted instruments, wearable controllers or prosthetic devices, mouth-operated controllers, audio controllers, gaze controllers, touchscreen controllers and mouse-controlled interfaces. The majority of the AMDIs were tangible or physical controllers. Although the haptic modality could potentially play an important role in musical interaction for many user groups, relatively few of the ADMIs (14.5%) incorporated vibrotactile feedback. Aspects judged to be important for successful ADMI design were instrument adaptability and customization, user participation, iterative prototyping, and interdisciplinary development teams.

Highlights

According to Article 27 of the Declaration of Human Rights [1], “Everyone has the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancements and its benefits”
The assumption that an electronic instrument consists only of an interface and a sound generator was challenged by Hunt et al [35], who emphasized the importance of mapping between input and system parameters, suggesting that mappings can define the essence of an instrument
Only 14.5% Accessible Digital Musical Instruments (ADMIs) incorporated vibrotactile feedback, while 45.5% provided visual

Summary

Introduction

According to Article 27 of the Declaration of Human Rights [1], “Everyone has the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancements and its benefits”. Robert Moog defined the concept of a Digital Musical Instrument using a modular description consisting of three parts: “the sound generator, the interface between the musician and the sound generator and the tactile and visual reality of the instrument that makes a musician feel good when using it” [33]. Another definition was presented by Pressing [34], who viewed the DMI from a perspective of a control interface, a processor and output.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion