Abstract

Extensive training with a musical instrument results in the automatization of the bodily operations needed to manipulate the instrument: the performer no longer has to consciously think about the instrument while playing. The ability of the performer to automate operations on the instrument is due to sensorimotor mechanisms that can predict changes in the state of the body and the instrument in response to motor commands. But how strong are these mechanisms? To what extent can we alter the structure of the instrument before they disappear? We performed an exploratory study to understand whether and how sensorimotor predictions survive instrument modification. We asked seven professional violinists to perform repertoire pieces and sight-reading exercises on four different violins: their own, a cheap violin, a small violin, and a violin whose strings had been put on in reverse order. We performed a series of quantitative investigations on performance intonation and duration, and on bowing gestures and errors. The analysis revealed that participants struggled adapting to the altered instruments, suggesting that prediction mechanisms are a function of instrument configuration. In particular, the analysis of bowing errors, intonation, and of performance duration suggested that the performance with the reverse violin was much less fluent and precise than the performer's own instrument; the performance with the small violin was also sub-standard though to a lesser extent. We also observed that violinists were differently affected by instrument modifications, suggesting that the capability to adapt to a new instrument is highly personal.

Highlights

  • The relationship between performer and instrument is interesting both for its complexity and for the common experience “that the musical instrument has become part of the body” (Nijs et al, 2009)

  • It is visible that the peaks of all strings have similar behaviors, with the exception of the A and E strings, which are lower for the reverse instrument

  • Related studies suggest that performance fluency transfers to new instruments after a period of re-adjustment (Bijsterveld and Schulp, 2004), which we suggested may be a consequence of a process of updating the forward and inverse internal models (Wolpert et al, 2001)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The relationship between performer and instrument is interesting both for its complexity and for the common experience “that the musical instrument has become part of the body” (Nijs et al, 2009). In other words: the challenge of understanding performer-instrument interaction is precisely that the performer is not consciously thinking about the instrument while playing Neuroscientists attribute this transparency to a number of internalized mental mechanisms. The feedforward model predicts changes in the state of a body part (or an object) in response to motor commands. These predictions are combined with sensory feedback forming a judgment about the state of our body (or the object). This judgment is used to adjust the gains of the sensorimotor feedback loop to maximize some measure of performance

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call