Skip to main content
Log in

A comparison of connectionist models of music recognition and human performance

  • General Articles
  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Current artificial neural network or connectionist models of music cognition embody feature-extraction and feature-weighting principles. This paper reports two experiments which seek evidence for similar processes mediating recognition of short musical compositions by musically trained and untrained listeners. The experiments are cast within a pattern recognition framework based on the vision-audition analogue wherein music is considered an auditory pattern consisting of local and global features. Local features such as inter-note interval, and global features such as melodic contour, are derived from a two-dimensional matrix in which music is represented as a series of frequencies plotted over time.

Manipulation of inter-note interval affected accuracy and reaction time measures in a discrimination task, whereas the same variables were affected by manipulation of melodic contour in a classification task. Musical training is thought of as a form of practice in musical pattern recognition and, as predicted, accuracy and reaction time measures of musically trained subjects were significantly better than those of untrained subjects. Given the evidence for feature-extraction and weighting processes in music recognition tasks, two connectionist models are discussed. The first is a single-layer perceptron which has been trained to discriminate between compositions according to inter-note interval. A second network, using the back-propagation algorithm and sequential input of patterns, is also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • BeylsP. (1990). ‘Musical Morphologies from Self-Organizing Systems’, Interface 19, 205–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • BharuchaJ. (1987). ‘Music Cognition and Perceptual Facilitation: A Connectionist Framework’, Music Perception 5, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • BharuchaJ. & ToddP. (1989). ‘Modeling the Perception of Tonal Structure with Neural Nets’, Computer Music Journal 13, 44–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • BiedermanI. (1987). ‘Recognition by Components: A Theory of Human Image Understanding’, Psychological Review 94, 115–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • ClarkA. (1990). Microcognition: Philosophy, Cognitive Science and Parallel Distributed Processing, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DolsonM. (1989). ‘Machine Tongues XII: Neural Networks’, Computer Music Journal 13, 28–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • EgethH. & PachellaR. (1969). ‘Multidimensional Stimulus Identification’, Perception & Psychophysics 5, 341–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • ElmanJ. L. (1990). ‘Finding Structure in Time’, Cognitive Science 14, 179–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • FodorJ. & PylyshynZ. (1988). ‘Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: A Critical Analysis’, Cognition 28, 3–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • FukushimaK. (1988). ‘Neocognitron: A Hierarchical Neural Network Capable of Visual Pattern Recognition’, Neural Networks 1, 119–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • GluckM. A. & BowerG. M. (1988). ‘Evaluating an Adaptive Network Model of Human Learning’, Journal of Memory and Language 27, 166–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • GjerdingenR. O. (1990). ‘Categorization of Musical Patterns by Self-Organizing Neuronlike Networks’, Music Perception 7 339–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • HawkinsH. L. (1969). ‘Parallel Processing in Complex Visual Discrimination’, Perception & Psychophysics 5, 56–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • HochbergJ. (1969). ‘In the Mind's Eye’, in R. N.Haber, ed., Contemporary Theory and Research in Visual Perception, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 309–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • HoffmanD. D. & RichardsW. A. (1988). ‘Parts of Recognition’, in S.Pinker, ed., Visual Cognition, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, pp. 65–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • JordanM. I. (1986). ‘Serial Order: A Parallel Distributed Processing Approach’ (Tech. Rep. No. 8604), San Diego: University of California, Institute for Cognitive Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • JuleszB. & HirshI. J. (1972). ‘Visual and Auditory Perception — An Essay of Comparison’, in E. E.David & P. B.Denes, eds., Human Communication: A Unified View, New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 283–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • KubovyM. (1981). ‘Concurrent-Pitch Segregation and the Theory of Indispensable Attributes’, in M.Kubovy & J.R.Pomerantz, eds., Perceptual Organization, Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 55–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • LadenB. & KeefeD. H. (1989). ‘The Representation of Pitch in a Neural Net Model of Chord Classification’, Computer Music Journal 13, 12–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • LangK. J. & WaibelA. H. (1990). ‘A Time-Delay Neural Network Architecture for Isolated Word Recognition’, Neural Networks 3, 23–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • LatimerC. R. (1990). ‘Eye-Movement Indices of Form Perception: Some Methods and Preliminary Results’, in R.Groner, G.D'Ydewalle, and R.Parham, eds., From Eye to Mind: Information Acquisition in Perception, Search, and Reading, North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 41–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leman, M. (1988). ‘Sequential (Musical) Information Processing with PDP-Networks’, Proceedings of the First Workshop on AI and Music, Minneapolis/St. Paul: AAAI-88, 163–172.

  • LinsterC. (1989). ‘Rhythm Analysis with Backpropagation’, in R.Pfeifer, Z.Schreter, F.Fogelman-Soulie, and L.Steels, eds., Connectionism in Perspective, North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 385–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • LivingstoneM. S. & HubelD. H. (1987). ‘Psychophysical Evidence for Separate Channels for the Perception of Form, Color, Movement and Depth’, Journal of Neuroscience 7, 3416–3468.

    Google Scholar 

  • LoyD. G. (1989). ‘Preface’, Special issue on parallel distributed processing and neural networks, Computer Music Journal 13, 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeodC. M. & DunbarK. (1988). ‘Training and Stroop-Like Interference: Evidence for a Continuum of Automaticity’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 14, 126–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClellandJ. L. (1979). ‘On the Time-Relations of Mental Processes: An Examination of Systems of Processes in Cascade’, Psychological Review 86, 287–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • MarrD. & NishiharaN. K. (1978). ‘Representation and Recognition of Spatial Organisation of Three-Dimensional Shapes’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 200, 269–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • MarsdenA. & PopleA. (1989). ‘Towards a Connected Distributed Model of Musical Listening’, Interface 18, 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • MassaroD. W. (1988). ‘Some Criticisms of Connectionist Models of Human Performance’, Journal of Memory and Language 27, 213–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • NeisserU. (1967). Cognitive Psychology, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • RumelhartD. E. & McClellandJ. L. (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vols I and II. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SayeghS. (1989). ‘Fingering for String Instruments with the Optimum Path Paradigm’, Computer Music Journal 13, 76–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • ScarboroughD., MillerB., and JonesJ. (1989). ‘Connectionist Models for Tonal Analysis’, Computer Music Journal 13, 49–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • SchneiderW. (1987). ‘Connectionism: Is It a Paradigm Shift for Psychology?’, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 19, 73–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, L. H. (1989). ‘Cognition and Affect in Musical Performance’, in S. McAdams & I. Deliege, eds., Music and the Cognitive Sciences, Harwood Academic Publishers.

  • SmolenskyP. (1988). ‘On the Proper Treatment of Connectionism’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11, 1–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • SutcliffeJ. P. (1986). ‘Differential Ordering of Objects and Attributes’, Psychometrika 51, 209–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, N. S. (1968). ‘Outlines of a Theory of Pattern Recognition in Animals and Man’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 297–317.

  • SutherlandN. S. (1973). ‘Object Recognition’, in E. C.Carterette & M. P.Friedman, eds., Handbook of Perception Vol. III: Biology of Perceptual Systems, New York: Academic Press, pp. 157–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • ToddP. M. (1989). ‘A Connectionist Approach to Algorithmic Composition’, Computer Music Journal 13, 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • ToddP. M. & LoyD. G. (eds.) (1991). Music and Connectionism, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • TreismanA. (1986). ‘Properties, Parts, and Objects’, in K. B.Boff, L.Kaufman, and J. P.Thomas, eds., Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Vol. II: Cognitive Processes & Performance, New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 35–1 to 35–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • WarrenR. M. (1982). Auditory Perception: A New Synthesis, New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • WestR., CrossI., and HowellP. (1987). ‘Modelling Music as Input-Output and as Process’, Psychology of Music 15, 7–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • WherryR. J. (1938). ‘Orders for the Presentation of Pairs in the Method of Paired Comparison’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 23, 651–660.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stevens, C., Latimer, C. A comparison of connectionist models of music recognition and human performance. Minds and Machines 2, 379–400 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419420

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419420

Key words

Navigation