The Psychology of Music

Third Edition

Edited by

Diana Deutsch
Department of Psychology
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California

AMSTERDAM· BOSTON . HEIDELBERG - LONDON . NEW YORI(

OXFORD · PARIS . SAN DIEGO . SAN FRANCISCO . SINGAPORE
SYDNEY · TOKYO
ELSEVIER Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
32 Jamestown Road. London NWI 1BY. UK
225 Wyman Street. Waltham. MA 02451. USA
525 B Street. Suite 1800. San Diego. CA 92101-4495. USA

Copyright C 20 13. 1999. 1982 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

No pan of this publication may be reproduced. slOred in a retrieval system or tnansmitted

in any foml or by any means electronic. mechanical. photocopying. recording or
otherwise without the prior wri nen permission of the publisher.

Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier's Science & Technology Rights
Department in Oxford. UK: phone (+44) (0) [865843830; fax (+44) (0) 1865 853333;email:
permissions@el.scvicr.com. Alternatively. visitlhe Science and Technology Books website at
www.elsevicrdiJ\.".Ct.comirights for furt her information

Notice
No respons ibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons
or property as a matter of products liability. negligence or otherwise. or from any use or
operation of any methods. prod ucts. instructions or ideas contained in the material herein.
Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences. in particular. independent verific ation of
diagnoses and drug dosages should be made.

IIritish Library Catuloguing.in-Publicalioll Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Libnlry of Congress Cataloging-in-Publica tion Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN: 978-0-12-381460-9

For information on all Academic Press publications

\'isit our website at elsevierdircct.com

Typeset by MPS Limited. Chennai. India

www.adi-mps.com

Printed and bound in United States of America

121314 1516 10981654321

Working together to grow

li braries in developing countries
www.dsevicr.com I www.bookaid.org I www.sabrc.org
 10 Music Performance: Movement
and Coordination
CaroLine Palmer
Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

I. Introduction
Most thoughts of music performance revolve around experts: highly skilled
musicians who spend several hours per day practicing, usually on a single instru-
ment. Indeed, a fair amount of the research literature on music performance is
focused on such cases. However, all humans are capable of making music to some
degree. Behaviors such as clapping to a song, humming or even imagining a famil-
iar melody, or swaying to a beat are common among individuals with and without
musical training. These behaviors represent complex examples of auditory scene
analysis, temporal expectancies, and other attentional and auditory memory-based
psychological processes that underlie music performance.
Two major advances have occurred in measurement of music performance: the
first is a focus on performers) motion, with motion-capture and video analysis tech-
niques. Recent technological developments have made it possible to measure joint
movements of musicians with small markers and no wires. The second advance is
a shift in focus from the individual to the group. Musicians tend to perform in
groups; only those who play multi voiced instruments such as piano or guitar tend
to perform by themselves as much as with others. Thus, it is fitting that ensembles
should be a focus of current research in performance. The theoretical question
becomes, how do models of single-individual behavior scale up to interactions
among individuals? Several intriguing lines of research, reviewed here, have begun
to focus on this question.
This chapter discusses research on these two novel developments in performance
research: (1) the role of musicians' movement and its relation to sounded perfor-
mance and (2) ensemble performance (two or more performers). Each discussion
is focused on the period since 2002 (for previous reviews of music performance,
see Gabrielsson, 1999, and Palmer, 1997; for reviews of rhythm and timing see
Honing, Chapter 9, this volume, and of singing see Sundberg, Chapter 3, this vol-
ume). The discussion of movement in performance is further divided into sections
on sensorimotor integration, biomechanical influences, and the role of expressive
gestures. The discussion of ensemble performance is further divided into sections

The Psychology of Music. DOl: http://dx.doi.org/IO.lOI61B978-0-12-381460-9.000JO-9

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
406 Caroline Palmer 10. Music Performance: Movement and COl

on the role of sensory feedback from oneself versus other performers, individual sampling rate. Another advantage
differences among ensemble members, and the complex real-world case of highlighting of motion landmarks tl
conducting. filtering and smoothing methods.
identify landmarks in finger accele
touch the instrument keys; touch i:
back and a critical technique in ped
11. Movement in Performance The majority of motion studies (
to performers' movement data to
There are several perspectives on the role of motion in music performance. One movement provides sensory infom
perspective is that a performer's motion during performance is shaped by ceptive feedback), how biomecha
psychological processes and task demands; these may include anatomical and phys- mance, and how motion reflects
iological adjustments of the body to best manipulate the musical instrument, and questions is considered in this secti
sensorimotor adaptations designed to optimize sensory feedback (from propriocep-
tive, tactile, visual, or auditory inputs). Another perspective, advanced by Truslit
(1938; translated by Repp, 1993), describes performers' motion as a spontaneous
A. Movement as Sensory In/or
manifestation of the expression of "inner motion," the driving force of the music Several lines of research suggest
related to interpretation, which is shaped by experience and artistic form and feedback to guide musicians' tim
is related to emotion, sensation of motion, and communication. This perspective is movements during performance (
related to a body of research that treats performers' motions as gestures: move- pianists perform upcoming events. I
ments that do not produce sound, but are related to the performers' intentions to ger trajectories toward the piano ke
shape the sound. These two perspectives on the role of motion in performance are ries contained different types and
described in this section. performance rates. One landmark,
Recent developments of motion capture systems allow researchers to record the change in acceleration when the fi
precise spatial position of each body joint at each point in time, with small this landmark occurred more ofte
reflective markers whose position is recorded with infrared cameras. Motion cap- pianists whose landmarks increase
ture methods include active systems (whose wired markers emit an infrared signal) relationship between increased tal
and passive systems (whose wireless markers passively reflect light) to measure increased temporal accuracy of t
joint movements during performance with very fine temporal resolution (on the Loehr, and Carter (2009) examinee
order of 10 ms). This method yields copious amounts of data that must be coordi- clarinet performance; unlike pianc
nated with the acoustic events, also sampled at high rates to permit fine temporal toward clarinet keys does not influ
resolution. Traditional methods for reducing motion data to reasonable amounts (breathing determines tone amplitut
involve filtering and smoothing techniques; however, some fine movements can be the researchers found that increase
obscured or reduced with these methods. yielded improved temporal accurai
Recent applications of functional data analysis techniques (Rams ay & Silverman, suggest that sensory information th:
2005) make it possible to retain the fine spatial information captured in limb tact with their instrument enh:
movements and align that information with other data streams (such as other motion movements.
measurements or acoustic events) through a process called eo-registration. How does movement-related fe,
Functional data analysis (FDA) methods are used to fit a continuous function, based music performance? Normally, sol
on b-splines, to a higher-order derivative of the discrete data stream, in order to and motor information from one's
smooth a lower-order derivative such as the velocity or acceleration of finger mance yields auditory information
movements (FDA techniques are described in more detail in Goebl & Palmer, 2008; one's own motor movements. Thu:
Loehr & Palmer, 2007; Vines, Krumhansl, Wanderley, & Levitin, 2006). used to playing with others, may
The continuous function can be resampled at a different rate than the original auditory or motor information that i
sampling rate, and realigned with other performances that may have originally Loehr and Palmer (2009b) contrast
contained different numbers of measurements, due to differences in tempo or mation on pianists' ability to perfoi
 Caroline Palmer
versus other performers, individual
the complex real-world case of
i motion in music performance. One
during performance is shaped by
ese may include anatomical and phys-
mipulate the musical instrument, and
e sensory feedback (from propriocep-
ther perspective, advanced by Truslit
performers' motion as a spontaneous
ition,' the driving force of the music
Jy experience and artistic form and
Id communication. This perspective is
rformers' motions as gestures: move-
.lated to the performers' intentions to
the role of motion in performance are
ystems allow researchers to record the
t at each point in time, with small
.d with infrared cameras. Motion cap-
wired markers emit an infrared signal)
ers passively reflect light) to measure
very fine temporal resolution (on the
; amounts of data that must be coordi-
d at high rates to permit fine temporal
Ig motion data to reasonable amounts
however, some fine movements can be
ilysis techniques (Ramsay & Silverman,
spatial information captured in limb
other data streams (such as other motion
igh a process called eo-registration.
used to fit a continuous function, based
of the discrete data stream, in order to
the velocity or acceleration of finger
in more detail in Goebl & Palmer, 2008;
iansl, Wanderley, & Levitin, 2006).
.d at a different rate than the original
performances that may have originally
nents, due to differences in tempo or
10. Music Performance: Movement and Coordination 407
sampling rate. Another advantage that FDA methods offer is the identification and
highlighting of motion landmarks that may be lost with the application of traditional
filtering and smoothing methods. For example, FDA methods have been used to
identify landmarks in finger acceleration trajectories when performers' fingers first
touch the instrument keys; touch is considered an important form of sensory feed-
back and a critical technique in pedagogical theory of performance.
The majority of motion studies described in the next section apply FDA methods
to performers' movement data to address three general research questions: how
movement provides sensory information to guide performance (tactile and proprio-
ceptive feedback), how biomechanical and anatomical constraints affect perfor-
mance, and how motion reflects expressive performance goals. Each of these
questions is considered in this section.
A. Movement as Sensory Information
Several lines of research suggest that finger motion provides important sensory
feedback to guide musicians' timing. Tactile information in performers' finger
movements during performance can affect the temporal accuracy with which
pianists perform upcorning events. Goebl and Palmer (2008) measured pianists' fin-
ger trajectories toward the piano keys with a motion capture system; finger trajecto-
ries contained different types and amounts of kinematic landmarks at different
performance rates. One landmark, a finger-key landmark, indicated a sudden large
change in acceleration when the finger made initial contact with the key surface;
this landmark occurred more often at fast performance tempi. Performances by
pianists whose landmarks increased across performance tempi showed a positive
relationship between increased tactile feedback from the current keystroke and
increased temporal accuracy of the subsequent keystroke. Palmer, Koopmans,
Loehr, and Carter (2009) examined the same finger-key acceleration landmarks in
clarinet performance; unlike piano performance, the speed of finger movements
toward clarinet keys does not influence the resulting loudness of the performance
(breathing determines tone amplitude on wind instruments such as clarinet). Again,
the researchers found that increased use of the finger-key landmarks across tempi
yielded improved temporal accuracy in the subsequent tone onset. These studies
suggest that sensory information that is available when musicians' limbs make con-
tact with their instrument enhances the temporal accuracy of upcoming
movements.
How does movement-related feedback interact with other sensory feedback in
music performance? Normally, solo performance yields tightly coupled auditory
and motor information from one's own feedback. In contrast, ensemble perfor-
mance yields auditory information that can occur in the presence or absence of
one's own motor movements. Thus, it is possible that skilled musicians, who are
used to playing with others, mayor may not be disrupted by the presence of
auditory or motor information that intervenes with their self-produced performance.
Loehr and Palmer (2009b) contrasted the effects of auditory and kinematic infor-
mation on pianists' ability to perform music with a metronome. Pianists produced
408 Caroline Palmer I 10. Music Performance: Movement and COl

musical melodies composed of quarter-note beats that were subdivided in different influences of biomechanical coul

I
conditions with intervening eighth notes that the pianists either heard (auditory performance. Pianists repeatedly ta
information), produced (motor information), both (normal performance), or neither of the chunks that formed subseq
(absence of eighth notes). Effects of auditory and motor feedback on quarter-note adjacent or nonadjacent fingers. C
performance were measured in terms of the temporal accuracy and the finger vals, regardless of the particular fin
movement trajectories, recorded with motion capture. Temporal asynchronies in ened and less variable relative to 0
performance were largest when motor or auditory sensory information was present; influenced peak finger heights, eo
auditory information gave rise to the largest asynchronies. In contrast, only the trajectories, regardless of chunkinj
production of movements (and not auditory feedback) influenced upcoming finger primarily, whereas biomechanical f;
motions; changes in finger motion suggested biomechanical constraints of coupling Pianists' temporal accuracy may
between the fingers that produced successive movements. This decoupling of audi- finger movements (Loehr & Palme
tory and motor information demonstrated that the influence of sensory information ger movements, similar to coarticu
on the timing of performance depends on its modality (auditory information affects timing and motion with which fin
timi ng most, but motor information does also) whereas motion trajectories are recorded skilled pianists tapping s,
influenced only by motor information arising primarily from biomechanical more or less independent of other fi:
constraints on sequential finger motion. it was more or less coupled. Less in
Another paradigm that demonstrates the importance of auditory-motor coupling coupled finger showed larger tirnin]
is manipulations of altered auditory feedback. In particular, the deleterious effects were related to the preceding finger'
of delayed auditory feedback (DAF) on the timing of music performance have been was not independent of the piar
widely documented. Several theories try to account for the auditory-motor relation- Furthermore, the interactions betwi
ship implied by DAF; a movement-related account of DAF (Howell, 2004) claims tempi. Overall, these findings ind
that altered auditory feedback perturbs the timing of execution, while other theories depends on the specific sequential (
attribute the disruption to the mechanisms responsible for the intersection of of -the performance.
perception and action (MacKay, 1987), and not to movement per se. Yet another Given that specific finger mOV
theory (event coding; Hommel, Musseler, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2001) views the perhaps not surprising that indiv
shared representation for perception and action as driven by planned action goals differentiate performers. Dalla Bel
that are coded as expected perceptual outcomes. Pfordresher and Dalla Bella pianists' fingers as they performe
(2011) tested whether DAF causes worst disruption when it is timed to coincide Pianists' finger velocity-acceleratic
with the upward movements of fingers (away from key targets) than with sufficiently unique to allow identifi:
downward movements toward keys; this prediction was supported in an isochro- trained on individual finger keysn
nous tapping task. Thus, these findings were more consistent with movement-based individual keystrokes, was higher f
theories of auditory feedback disruption (How ell, Powell, & Khan, 1983) than with ing, and only finger movements t
movement-independent explanations (MacKay, 1987). fingers were "at rest" (awaiting tl
Biomechanical and anatomical constraints on the motion of performers' limbs information to accurately identify i
influence the degree to which a possible movement is independent of the effector all fingers (performer differences tra
used to create it. For example, differences in hand dexterity may influence the "signatures" may reflect unique go
precision of force or timing that a musician produces. Despite the fact that musicians lead to individualistic sound, cons
practice exercises designed to reduce biomechanical constraints on fingers and claims differences in pianists' touch
hands, strong finger interdependencies still exist even in highly skilled musicians. Goebl & Palmer, 2008).
For example, finger movements that produce sequences of elements are often
influenced by the finger movements that generate neighboring elements in the
sequence, a musical form of coarticulation. Successive finger movements may also
B. Movement as Expressive Gest
be constrained by biomechanical coupling factors that can contribute to lack of inde-
pendence among physically adjacent fingers, including shared muscles and tendons. Performers' movements also encon
Loehr and Palmer (2007) contrasted cognitive influences of chunking with appear to be tied to expressive goal
10. Music Performance: Movement and Coordination 409

influences of biomechanical coupling on physically adjacent fingers in piano

performance. Pianists repeatedly tapped four-finger sequences that differed in terms
of the chunks that formed subsequences and in the transitions among physically
adjacent or nonadjacent fingers. Chunking influenced the timing of intertap inter-
vals, regardless of the particular fingers used; the final tap of each chunk was length-
ened and less variable relative to other taps. The particular fingers used in the task
influenced peak finger heights, consistency of motion, and velocity-acceleration
trajectories, regardless of chunking. Thus, cognitive constraints influenced timing
primarily, whereas biomechanical factors mainly influenced motion trajectories.
Pianists' temporal accuracy may be influenced by sequential effects of preceding
finger movements (Loehr & Palmer, 2009a). Sequential dependencies between fin-
ger movements, similar to coarticulation effects in speech, may influence both the
timing and motion with which fingers move on keys. Loehr and Palmer (2009a)
recorded skilled pianists tapping sequences in which a finger whose motion was
more or less independent of other fingers' motion was preceded by a finger to which
it was more or less coupled. Less independent fingers and those preceded by a more
coupled finger showed larger timing errors and larger changes in finger motion that
were related to the preceding finger's motion. Thus, the timing of sequence elements
was not independent of the pianists' finger motions used to produce them.
Furthermore, the interactions between timing and motion were stronger at faster
tempi. Overall, these findings indicate that temporal accuracy in performance
depends on the specific sequential dependencies between fingers and on the tempo
of the performance.
Given that specific finger movements affect the timing of performance, it is
perhaps not surprising that individual differences in finger movements can
differentiate performers. Dalla Bella and Palmer (2011) captured the motion of
pianists' fingers as they performed melodies from memory at different tempi.
Pianists' finger velocity-acceleration profiles as the fingers approached keys were
sufficiently unique to allow identification with a neural-network classifier that was
trained on individual finger keystrokes. Classification success, based again on
individual keystrokes, was higher for pianists with more extensive musical train-
ing, and only finger movements toward keys-not away from keys, or when
fingers were "at rest" (awaiting their turn for keystrokes)-provided sufficient
information to accurately identify individual pianists; these findings held across
all fingers (performer differences transcended finger differences). These movement
"signatures" may reflect unique goal-directed movement kinematic patterns that
lead to individualistic sound, consistent with music pedagogical literature that
claims differences in pianists' touch are important for successful performance (see
Goebl & Palmer, 2008).

8. Movement as Expressive Gesture

Performers' movements also encompass non-sound-producing movements that
appear to be tied to expressive goals. The term "expressive gestures" refers both
410 Caroline Palmer 10. Music Performance: Movement and Coo

to acoustic cues that distinguish one performance of the same music from another position was higher near the ei
and to motion cues of musicians' bodies and instruments that often highlight beginnings; the magnitude of the
important aspects of a performance (Palmer, 1997; Wanderley, 2002). For example, expressive lengthening of tone dun
visual cues such as the head and upper torso movements of performing pianists can exaggerated performances is con:
be as effective as auditory cues in conveying the pianists' intended expressivity to sound-producing gestures from anc
viewers (Davidson, 1995; Vines et al., 2006). Piano performance, the focus of the et al. found a correspondence betwt
majority of movement studies, offers a limited range of motion cues because of suggesting that ancillary gestures
the fixed position of the instrument and the seated position of the performer; events at phrase boundaries. Tl
expressive movement is limited to the hands, upper torso, and head (Davidson, performances- and decreased in
2002). Although a wider range of performers' movements have been documented expressive performances, consisten
for mobile instruments such as string (Askenfelt, 1986, 1989), brass (Overholt changes near phrase boundaries
et al., 2009), and wind instruments (Wanderley, 2002), only more recently has performers (Kendall & Carterette, :
research addressed the relationship between those movements and acoustic features did not increase with tone intensi
of instrumentalists' expressive performance (e.g., Godoy & Leman, 2010). directly from sound production
Delalande (1988) classified the possible gestures available to a musician into intentions (Chagnon, Campbell, & .
three basic categories: effective gestures, figurative gestures, and accompanying McKay, & Hatch, 2005) to patterns
gestures. Effective gestures are those that actually produce sound, such as pianists' motion in clarinet performance.
finger movements in keystrokes. Figurative gestures include sonic gestures per- Some aspects of musicians'
ceived by an audience that have no direct correspondence to physical movement, periodicities present in the mus
such as timbral changes in an instrument. Accompanying or ancillary gestures are examined musicians' body moverr
visible body movements that are not directly linked to sound production, such as tures of the musical meter. The au
pianists' head movements. Ancillary gestures can influence perceivers' judgments their bodies in synchrony with a n
of recorded music performances. Davidson (1993) recorded violinists while they within the meter (Palmer & Krum
performed a musical excerpt in three different styles: projected (normal), deadpan, tured while moving freely to al
and exaggerated intents. Viewers then rated each performance as belonging to one A periodicity analysis of the e
of the three categories, after viewing a point-light display of the performers' components at periods of one, tw
motion, hearing the audio recording, or both. In some conditions (particularly meter. Thus, several metrical level
deadpan performances), visual information alone provided better identification of although participants tended to n
expressive intent than sound alone. These findings suggest that motion carries at Faster metrical levels were seen j
least some unique information about performers' expressive intent relative to the and slower periodicities in the cen
acoustic cues. was applied to formal dance; Na
Although the relationship between musicians' expressive gestures that arise gesture analysis to the dance of
from sound and from motion has been investigated largely with stationary formed Charleston and samba styl
instruments such as piano and drums (Dahl, 2004; Davidson, 2002), a few studies cers, the spatial positions of arms
have addressed performers' movements on nonstationary instruments. Wanderley and second beats in the beginners
(2002) compared ancillary gestures in clarinetists' performances of the same musi- level, and other (larger) metrical
cal piece in a standard (normal) performance, an expressive performance (with full gestures. Although these studies 1

range of expression), and a performance in which clarinetists were instructed to number of performers, this approa:
move the instrument as little as possible. The performances were recorded with movement remains promising.
optical motion capture and the clarinet bell position was analyzed in x (horizontal), In sum, motion of individual f
y (sagittal), and z (vertical) dimensions. This experiment suggested that the same guide the timing and dynami
performers used consistent movements within each expressive condition and larger expressively important structural
movements in the more expressive conditions. discuss the role of motion in en
Palmer et al. (2009) examined clarinetists' bell movements as the clarinetists of coordinating two or more SOl
swayed to the music they were performing. The orientation of clarinetists' bell much larger.
 Caroline Palmer
Ice of the same music from another
d instruments that often highlight
97; Wanderley, 2002). For example,
ivements of performing pianists can
~e pianists' intended expressivity to
Jiano performance, the focus of the
j range of motion cues because of
seated position of the performer;
upper torso, and head (Davidson,
movements have been documented
ifelt, 1986, 1989), brass (Overholt
ey, 2002), only more recently has
se movements and acoustic features
i., Godoy & Leman, 2010).
stures available to a musician into
lrative gestures, and accompanying
Ily produce sound, such as pianists'
estures include sonic gestures per-
·espondence to physical movement,
ompanying or ancillary gestures are
inked to sound production, such as
.an influence perceivers' judgments
993) recorded violinists while they
styles: projected (normal), deadpan,
eh performance as belonging to one
It-light display of the performers'
I. In some conditions (particularly
ne provided better identification of
lings suggest that motion carries at
rs' expressive intent relative to the
ins' expressive gestures that arise
vestigated largely with stationary
)04; Davidson, 2002), a few studies
nstationary instruments. Wanderley
its' performances of the same musi-
n expressive performance (with full
hich clarinetists were instructed to
: performances were recorded with
ition was analyzed in x (horizontal),
sxperiment suggested that the same
.ach expressive condition and larger
bell movements as the clarinetists
Ihe orientation of clarinetists' bell
10. Music Performance: Movement and Coordination 411
pOSItIOn was higher near the ends of musical phrases and lower near the
beginnings; the magnitude of the bell elevation corresponded to the amount of
expressive lengthening of tone durations. The finding of increased bell elevation in
exaggerated performances is consistent with Delalande's (1988) distinction of
sound-producing gestures from ancillary (non-sound-producing) gestures. Palmer
et al. found a correspondence between lengthened tone durations and bell elevation,
suggesting that ancillary gestures of bell motion may reinforce salient acoustic
events at phrase boundaries. This correspondence increased in exaggerated
performances and decreased in inexpressive performances relative to normal
expressive performances, consistent with previous findings that expressive timing
changes near phrase boundaries are modulated by expressive instructions to
performers (Kendall & Carterette, 1990; Palmer, 1989). The fact that bell elevation
did not increase with tone intensities suggests that bell elevation does not arise
directly from sound production goals. Several studies tie expressive acoustic
intentions (Chagnon, Campbell, & Wanderley, 2005; Wanderley, Vines, Middleton,
McKay, & Hatch, 2005) to patterns of bell movement, one of the largest sources of
motion in clarinet performance.
Some aspects of musicians' movement suggest a reinforcement of the
periodicities present in the music. Toiviainen, Luck, and Thompson (2010)
examined musicians' body movements that synchronized with the periodic struc-
tures of the musical meter. The authors hypothesized that performers would move
their bodies in synchrony with a musical beat at more than one hierarchical level
within the meter (Palmer & Krumhansl, 1990). Musicians' movements were cap-
tured while moving freely to an instrumental blues progression in : meter.
A periodicity analysis of the estimated kinetic energy indicated movement
components at periods of one, two, and four beats, consistent with the musical
meter. Thus, several metrical levels were incorporated in the dancers' movements,
although participants tended to incorporate only one metrical level at a time.
Faster metrical levels were seen in movements of extremities (hands and arms)
and slower periodicities in the central part of the body (torso). A similar approach
was applied to formal dance; Naveda and Leman (2011) applied a topological
gesture analysis to the dance of two professionals and two students, who per-
formed Charleston and samba styles. Although there was a small number of dan-
cers, the spatial positions of arms and feet tended to synchronize with the first
and second beats in the beginners' styles; the hand gestures indicated a two-beat
level, and other (larger) metrical levels were seen in the coordination of body
gestures. Although these studies were limited in the type of music, dance, and
number of performers, this approach to deriving aspects of musical structure from
movement remains promising.
In sum, motion of individual performers can enhance sensory information to
guide the timing and dynamics of performance, as well as to mark
expressively important structural and emotional aspects of performance. Next I
discuss the role of motion in ensemble performance, where the task demands
of coordinating two or more sources of sensory information and actions are
much larger.
412 Caroline Palmer 10. Music Performance: Movement and COOl

Ill. EnsembLe Performance Large, & Palmer, 2011), it has not t

ably because of the computational c
Studies of psychological aspects of performance, ranging from reading notation temporal correction by ensemble pe
(Brodsky, Kessler, Rubinstein, Ginsborg, & Henik, 2008; Sloboda, 1984) to skill ments of string ensembles. Moore ;
learning (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Rorner, 1993) to memory retrieval ability to produce rhythmic groups
(Chaffin & Imreh, 2002; Palmer, 2005; Palmer & Pfordresher, 2003), have focused were attached to their elbows in on
almost exclusively on the individual performer; yet, most performance occurs of the angular velocity of the right f
between musicians in groups, from duets to large orchestral ensembles. Successful linist, who produced the 16th-note I
performance requires individuals to adapt to the flow of the ensemble in their tim- (as measured by cross-correlations
ing, dynamics (loudness), and timbre. Ensemble performance quickly becomes an even while the tempo (frequency)
expanded problem of sensorimotor integration: how the brain processes multiple performance; thus, this finding ind
sensory inputs (sensation) and maps them to outputs (action). How is the motor string players. The authors modeled
system involved in perception? How is the auditory system involved in production? nating renewal process, in which the
These questions are critical in the realm of ensemble performance, in which drawn independently and randomly
musicians must adapt quickly to the sensory information from their own perfor- and shorter means. The same was tn
mance and that of other ensemble members. This problem has been encountered in not the same as those for the down-I
other branches of behavior but is especially salient when split-second timing delays ture measurements of the bowing an
can wreak havoc on group performance. could account for interonset interval
Few empirical studies of ensemble performance were reported before 2002, but pattern of bowing movements (such
a trend has started with current technological advances in group measurement in Structural relationships betweei
acoustics (such as spherical array techniques) and in motion (including motion coordinate also influence the timing
capture). One of the earliest studies reported auditory measurements of wind and compared solo and duet piano pe
string trios (Rasch, 1979) that showed that the performer playing the main melodic structure of the left-hand part (ace
line sounded their tone onsets 10 ms earlier than the other parts. Shaffer's (1984) complex in melodic contour, in req
analysis of tones on sets in piano duets documented how the other members' perfor- right-hand melody. Tempo meas
mance timing caused adaptation by individual performers, while maintaining their complex structural relationships wen
individual roles such as "leader" and "follower." Seminal studies of solo and choral ple structural relationships, regardles
singing have documented changes in articulation, phonation, and overall sound (solo) performer or by two perfonne
level when singers perform together in ensembles (Rossing, Sundberg, & for the right-hand part (performed by
Ternstrom, 1986; see Chapter 3, this volume). More recent studies have focused on mances were highly correlated for tl
computer-accompanied performance by individual musicians who perform to a tural relationships but were not corn
metronomic beat. In ensemble performance, however, one adapts against a variable Motion capture measurements of the
tempo generated by other ensemble members who may in turn be adapting to each preparatory constraints of coordinati
other. I focus next on these cases. than in duet performance. Thus, tl
reflected structural relationships in si
whereas the motion parameters re
coordination.
A. Sensory Feedback in Ensembles
Familiarity with the musical mate
Temporal correction in tapping tasks in response to changes in the timing of an tion. Keller, Knoblich, and Repp (20
auditory stimulus such as a metronome has been modeled with two processes: unfamiliar duets; later, they perfoi
phase and period correction. Phase correction is thought to be automatic, whereas a recording of their performance of t
period correction is under cognitive control. Although this account of temporal of that part. Although this task is no
coordination has been tested with tapping tasks (Konvalinka, Vuust, Roepstorff, & the variability in the synchronization
Frith, 2010; Large, Fink & Kelso, 2002; Repp, 2001; Semjen, Schulze, & Vorberg, better at synchronizing with their OWl
2000) and more recently with solo music performance with a metronome (Loehr, nition test indicated that pianists id
 Caroline Palmer
nee, ranging from reading notation
enik, 2008; Sloboda, 1984) to skill
ner, 1993) to memory retrieval
& Pfordresher, 2003), have focused
rer; yet, most performance occurs
'ge orchestral ensembles. Successful
e flow of the ensemble in their tim-
le performance quickly becomes an
: how the brain processes multiple
outputs (action). How is the motor
tory system involved in production?
, ensemble performance, in which
information from their own perfor-
lis problem has been encountered in
lent when split-second timing delays
mce were reported before 2002, but
advances in group measurement in
) and in motion (including motion
iuditory measurements of wind and
performer playing the main melodic
an the other parts. Shaffer's (1984)
ited how the other members' perfor-
performers, while maintaining their
" Seminal studies of solo and choral
tion, phonation, and overall sound
nsembles (Rossing, Sundberg, &
vlore recent studies have focused on
idual musicians who perform to a
wever, one adapts against a variable
vho may in turn be adapting to each
nse to changes in the timing of an
been modeled with two processes:
is thought to be automatic, whereas
Although this account of temporal
; (Konvalinka, Vuust, Roepstorff, &
2001; Semjen, Schulze, & V orberg,
ormance with a metronome (Loehr,
10. Music Performance: Movement and Coordination 413
Large, & Palmer, 2011), it has not been applied to ensemble performance yet, prob-
ably because of the computational complexity of the task. An alternative account of
temporal correction by ensemble performers has been proposed, based on measure-
ments of string ensembles. Moore and Chen (2010) tested string quartet members'
ability to produce rhythmic groups of 16th-note sequences while motion sensors
were attached to their elbows in order to measure bowing motions. Measurements
of the angular velocity of the right forearm (the bowing arm) of the violist and vio-
linist, who produced the 16th-note passages, indicated a high degree of synchrony
(as measured by cross-correlations between successive down-bowed intervals),
even while the tempo (frequency) of the bow strokes shifted across the musical
performance; thus, this finding indicated a high degree of coupling between the
string players. The authors modeled each string player's timing patterns as an alter-
nating renewal process, in which the intervals between successive down-bows were
drawn independently and randomly from two alternate distributions having longer
and shorter means. The same was true for the up-bows, whose interval lengths were
not the same as those for the down-bows. This approach was based on motion cap-
ture measurements of the bowing arm; it is not clear whether an alternating process
could account for interonset intervals whose movements differed from the up-down
pattern of bowing movements (such as pianists' successive keystrokes).
Structural relationships between the musical parts that musicians must ~
coordinate also influence the timing of that performance. Palmer and Loehr (2012)
compared solo and duet piano performances of two-part music in which the
structure of the left-hand part (accompaniment) was designed to be simple or
complex in melodic contour, in required hand movements, and in its relation to the
right-hand melody. Tempo measures indicated that compositions with more
complex structural relationships were performed more slowly than those with sim-
ple structural relationships, regardless of whether the performance was by a single
(solo) performer or by two performers (duet). Furthermore, the performance tempi
for the right-hand part (performed by the same pianists) in the solo and duet perfor-
mances were highly correlated for the musical works that contained simple struc-
tural relationships but were not correlated for the complex structural relationships.
Motion capture measurements of the right-hand finger movements indicated greater
preparatory constraints of 'coordinating two limb movements in solo performance
than in duet performance. Thus, the timing parameters of music performance
reflected structural relationships in similar ways in the solo and duet performances,
whereas the motion parameters revealed task-specific demands of multilimb
coordination.
Familiarity with the musical material or style can influence temporal coordina-
tion. Keller, Knoblich, and Repp (2007) had skilled pianists record one part from
unfamiliar duets; later, they performed the alternate part in synchrony with
a recording of their performance of the first part or with another pianist's recording
of that part. Although this task is not duet performance but instead playing along"
the variability in the synchronization timing measures indicated the pianists were
better at synchronizing with their own performance than with others. A later recog-
nition test indicated that pianists identified their own performances better than
414 Caroline Palmer LOo Music Performance: Movement and Coord

chance. The authors attribute this finding to a mental simulation of the other (a) 0.5 (b) 0.5
pianists' part; general differences in playing style may also contribute to this differ-
0.4 0.4
ence. Subsequent experiments (Repp & Keller, 2010) indicated that pianists were
better at detecting temporal deviations in their own (self-generated) performance § 0.3 0.3
than in another pianist's performance, but only if that deviation was placed in a ~
~ 0.2 0.2
position that differed between self- and other-generated performances. Thus, o
personal playing style may influence the ability to generate temporal expectations ~ 0.1 0.1
co
that guide synchronization. ~ 0 +-,"='-r-~-'--r....E.....C"'--, o
Several studies of ensemble performance document how performers adapt their -1 o
-0.1 -0.1
coordination with other performers in the face of altered auditory feedback. Goebl
and Palmer (2009) measured piano duets in which the pianist playing the upper -0.2
part was designated the leader and the other pianist was the follower. (c) 0.5 (d) 0.5
They received full auditory feedback, one-way feedback (leaders heard themselves
0.4 0.4
while followers heard both parts), or self-feedback only. In addition, the upper part
c
contained more, fewer, or equal numbers of notes relative to the lower part. o 0.3 0.3
Temporal asynchronies between tone on sets notated as simultaneous increased as ~
0.2 0.2
auditory feedback decreased: The pianist playing more notes preceded the other ~o
pianist, and this tendency increased with reduced feedback. Cross-correlations ~ 0.1 0.1
co
between the interonset intervals of the two parts suggested bidirectional ID
o
:2: o
adjustments during full feedback despite the leader/follower instructions, and unidi-
-0.1 -0.1
rectional adjustment only (leader influencing follower) during reduced feedback.
Motion capture analyses, based on markers placed on the heads and fingers of the -0.2 -0.2
pianists, indicated that leaders raised fingers higher and pianists' head movements -1 o
became more synchronized as auditory feedback was reduced. Similar findings
(e) 0.5 (f) 0.5
from Keller and Appel (2010) indicated effects on duet pianists' motion of remov-
ing visual contact between the two pianists. Asynchronization between tone onsets 0.4 0.4
notated as simultaneous was correlated with the amount of cross-coordination lag
§ 0.3 0.3
in the pianists' body sway; the larger the asynchrony between pianists, the larger ~
the lag between their frontward body sway patterns, as measured by their shoulder ~ 0.2 0.2
positions. Overall, these studies suggest that performers use alternative forms of o
~ 0.1 0.1
sensory information more when some sensory information is removed. co
ID
Which is more dominant in the temporal coordination of performance ensembles: :2: 0 o
adapting to the changing tempo of one's partners or honoring musical roles that may -0.1 -0.1
determine who sets the tempo? Figure 1 demonstrates the cross-correlations between
-0.2 -0.2
the interonset timing of two simultaneous parts when pianists play in solo perfor-
mance (Figure la and lb) or in duet performance (Figure 1c-If). Figure le further -1 o
displays the cross-correlations in the leader/follower instructions of Goebl and Lag correlation (upper-lows

Palmer (2009), and Figure If displays the cross-correlations from the removal of
auditory feedback to the leader about the follower's part. Lag 0 correlations indicate indicate that the upper part tracked t
the degree to which interonset intervals in the upper musical part (melody) In Figures le and If, Lag 1 correlati
correspond to those in the lower part (accompaniment); a high value is seen in solo der's timing at a delay of one tone, a!
performance and a low (non-significant) value in duet performance, owing to the tracked the follower's timing at a dell
fact that it takes time for performers to note the tempo change of their partner. The adaptation patterns in duet I
In Figures la-Id, Lag 1 correlations indicate that the lower part (accompaniment) the different studies shown in Figun
tracked the upper part's timing at a delay of one tone, and Lag -1 correlations and -1 are large in Figure Ic, Id, ar
 CarolinePalmer 10.Music Performance:Movementand Coordination 415

a mental simulation of the other (a) 0.5 (b) 0.5 Figure 1 Mean cross-
e may also contribute to this differ- 0.4
correlations among interonset
0.4
2010) indicated that pianists were intervals for the upper (melody)
own (self-generated) performance s 0.3 0.3 and lower (accompaniment) parts
~ in performances of novel 2-part
r if that deviation was placed in a ~ 0.2 0.2
Cs piano pieces. Each graph
ier-generated performances. Thus, 0.1 represents the data of 16 pianists.
~ 0.1
r to generate temporal expectations (1)
Q) (a), Solo performance; (b), solo
:2: 0 0
-1 0 1 -1 0 1 performance; (c), duet
cument how performers adapt their -0.1 -0.1 performance, with fixed partner;
of altered auditory feedback. Goebl (d), duet performance, with
-0.2
/hich the pianist playing the upper changing partner; (e), duet
other pianist was the follower. (c) 0.5 (d) 0.5 performance, leader (upper)/
feedback (leaders heard themselves follower (lower) roles; (f), duet
0.4 0.4
ack only. In addition, the upper part performance, leader/follower
§ 0.3 0.3 roles with reduced auditory
, notes relative to the lower part.
~ feedback to leader (see text for
btated as simultaneous increased as ~ 0.2 0.2 further description).
ing more notes preceded the other Cs
~ 0.1 0.1 Parts (a) and (c) based on data
duced feedback. Cross-correlations (1) from Palmer and Loehr (2012),
Q)
wo parts suggested bidirectional :2: 0 0 (b) and (d) based on data from
ider/follower instructions, and unidi- -0.1 -0.1 Loehr and Palmer (2011), (e) and
follower) during reduced feedback. (f) based on data from Goebl and
iced on the heads and fingers of the -0.2 -0.2 Palmer (2009).
igher and pianists' head movements -1 0 1 -1 0
Jack was reduced. Similar findings (f) 0.5
(e) 0.5]
, on duet pianists' motion of remov-
0.4 0.4
synchronization between tone on sets

--
•••
he amount of cross-coordination lag § 0.31'" 0.3
nchrony between pianists, the larger ~
~ 0.21_ 0.2
ltems, as measured by their shoulder Cs
performers use alternative forms of ~ 0.11 _ 0.1
(1)
i~formation is removed. Q)

:2: '01-,_,- 0
)[dination of performance ensembles:
rs or honoring musical roles that may
\ -0.1 J T -0.1
istrates the cross-correlations between
-0.2 -0.2
ts when pianists play in solo perfor-
-1 0 1 -1 0
nee (Figure lc-If). Figure le further
Lag correlation(upper-lower)
/follower instructions of Goebl and
oss-correlations from the removal of
wer's part. Lag 0 correlations indicate indicate that the upper part tracked the lower part's timing at a delay of one tone.
!l the upper musical part (melody) In Figures le and If, Lag 1 correlations indicate that the follower tracked the lea-
animent); a high value is seen in solo der's timing at a delay of one tone, and Lag -1 correlations indicate that the leader
le in duet performance, owing to the tracked the follower's timing at a delay of one tone.
B the tempo change of their partner. The adaptation patterns in duet performance are remarkably consistent across
: that the lower part (accompaniment) the different studies shown in Figure 1. The fact that cross-correlations at Lags 1
f one tone, and Lag - 1 correlations and -1 are large in Figure 1c, Id, and le (normal duet performance) suggests that
416 Caroline Palmer 10, Music Performance: Movement and Coorl

both duettists are adapting to the other's timing, regardless of whether leader/fol- individual synchronization abilities
lower roles are assigned. In addition, the pianists adapted to a range of partners absolute) relationships between indi
(across the duet pairs; Figure l c) as well as they adapted to a fixed partner (across performance coordination is similar
duets; Figure Id). Furthermore, biomechanical differences between the hands used Palmer (2011) in duet piano perform
(left versus right) do not appear to influence the temporal adaptation; Figures Ic Ensemble jazz performance offe
and Id (Loehr & Palmer, 2011) reflect duet performance with the left hand (lower coordination. Jazz performers have
part) and right hand (upper part), whereas Figures le and If (Goebl & Palmer, an underlying beat. Friberg and Sum
2009) reflect duet performance with the right hand (lower part) and right hand of swing tendencies for ensemble p
(upper part), which yielded remarkably similar adaptation patterns. The only condi- or after the beat by analyzing jazz E
tion in which bidirectional adaptation is disrupted is when auditory feedback is recordings. The timing of cymbal s
reduced (Figure If) and the leader cannot hear the follower. The reduced Lag -1 ratio, defined as the ratio formed
correlation in this condition reflects the lack of adaptation of the leader to the notes, as the tempo increased; the n
follower's timing, who appears to be adapting to the leader (Lag 1) as much in tempi to 1: 1 at faster tempi. The t r
reduced feedback (Figure If) as during full auditory feedback (Figure le). Despite phone, or trumpet) in each jazz en
the musical roles assigned, the leader always adapts to the temporal changes of the soloists performed after the cymba'
follower in the presence of normal auditory feedback. Thus, adaptation to the temporal disparity was larger at s;
timing of one's partner in a musical ensemble seems to transcend influences of emerged for offbeats; the soloist's
musical roles and any biomechanical differences; this finding is consistent with drummer's cymbal, and this synch
views that some aspects of temporal coordination (in particular, phase adaptation) tended to play around the drumrru
are automatic, fast, and beyond conscious control (see also Konvalinka et al., swing ratio (with values up to 4: I).
2010). taining the beat. This example captu
ensemble performers, even (or espec
ral variation within performers (Ash
B. Individual Differences and Musical Roles in Ensembles
Another arena in which sensorimc
There are important individual differences in how musicians adapt to their partners of conducting. Conductors typically
in duet settings, in which each performer has a roughly equivalent opportunity to an ensemble of musicians who play
influence their fellow musician. Loehr and Palmer (2011) studied duet pianists' ments. Luck and Toiviainen (2006)
ability to perform right-hand melodies with the left-accompaniment performed by tures during a 20-min performance.
themselves or by their partner. Temporal coordination measures (asynchronies and would synchronize primarily with tln
cross-correlations of interonset intervals between the parts) were influenced by following the visual cues of the cond
individual differences between partners' preferred rates; partners who had similar ductor's baton motions was cross-cor
preferred rates in solo performance were better synchronized and showed mutual mance, measured by the beat rate as
adaptation to each other's timing during duet performances. Neither performer'S were categorized on the basis of the
preferred rates correlated with the duet performance measures; it was the mismatch ductor. The ensemble's performanc
between the performer in each pair (relative differences) rather than the characteris- cross-correlations and smaller lag b
tics of either individual (absolute levels) that predicted the temporal characteristics designated as having a clear beat. TI
of the joint performance. Pecenka and Keller (2011) likewise documented mers who synchronize with a conduc
individual differences in amateur musicians' ability to synchronize in a duet sensorimotor integration of one's 0\\
tapping task. Individuals with high or low prediction tendencies (as measured in ronment becomes more complex thar
a nonmusical temporal task) tapped with a metronome in synchrony with another Sociological factors influence ill
musician with similar or different prediction tendencies. Duets composed of two Davidson and Good (2002) videot
high-prediction individuals tapped with higher accuracy and less variability than movements for extramusical interpe
low-prediction duettists, whereas mixed duets performed at an intermediate level. different members and comments ab!
The authors reported that the match of prediction tendencies explained the duet about the coordination of the content
synchronization performance beyond the explanatory power of differences in their of attacks. These comments were CO!
 Caroline Palmer
ng, regardless of whether leader/fol-
rusts adapted to a range of partners
ey adapted to a fixed partner (across
differences between the hands used
the temporal adaptation; Figures 1c
erformance with the left hand (lower
igures le and If (Goebl & Palmer,
It hand (lower part) and right hand
adaptation patterns. The only condi-
iUpted is when auditory feedback is
I
r the follower. The reduced Lag -1
. of adaptation of the leader to the
g to the leader (Lag 1) as much in
iditory feedback (Figure le). Despite
ldapts to the temporal changes of the
feedback. Thus, adaptation to the
le seems to transcend influences of
ces; this finding is consistent with
tion (in particular, phase adaptation)
~ontrol (see also Konvalinka et aI.,
oLes in EnsembLes
how musicians adapt to their partners
; a roughly equivalent opportunity to
Palmer (2011) studied duet pianists'
I .
he left-accompaniment performed by
~dination measures (asynchronies and
~een the parts) were influenced by
'erred rates; partners who had similar
iter synchronized and showed mutual
et performances. Neither performer' s
ance measures; it was the mismatch
~fferences) rather than the characteris-
predicted the temporal characteristics
Keller (2011) likewise documented
Is, ability to synchronize in a duet
nediction tendencies (as measured in
netronome in synchrony with another
I tendencies. Duets composed of two
ier accuracy and less variability than
s performed at an intermediate level.
diction tendencies explained the duet
Ilanatory power of differences in their
la. Music Performance: Movement and Coordination 417
individual synchronization abilities; this emphasis on the role of relative (not
absolute) relationships between individual performers in predicting their ensemble
performance coordination is similar to the temporal predictions made by Loehr and
Palmer (2011) in duet piano performance.
Ensemble jazz performance offers a particularly challenging case of temporal
coordination. Jazz performers have certain stylistic freedom to wander away from
an underlying beat. Friberg and Sundstrom (2002) analyzed the rhythmic properties
of swing tendencies for ensemble performers to play on the beat, before the beat,
or after the beat by analyzing jazz solos performed by drummers in jazz ensemble
recordings. The timing of cymbal strokes indicated a linear decrease in the swing
ratio, defined as the ratio formed by the relative durations of successive eighth
notes, as the tempo increased; the ratio of long-short tones varied from 3: 1 at slow
tempi to 1: 1 at faster tempi. The temporal coordination of the soloist (piano, saxo-
phone, or trumpet) in each jazz ensemble relative to the drummer indicated that
soloists performed after the cymbal on positions of metrical downbeats and that
temporal disparity was larger at slower tempi. Interestingly, a different pattern
emerged for offbeats; the soloist's tone onsets were more synchronous with the
drummer's cymbal, and this synchrony yielded smaller variance. Thus, soloists
tended to play around the drummer's beat and drummers played with a larger
swing ratio (with values up to 4:1), despite the drummers' primary role of main-
taining the beat. This example captures the fine temporal control necessary between
ensemble performers, even (or especially) in a style that permits significant tempo-
ral variation within performers (Ashley, 2002; Schober & Levine, 2011).
Another arena in which sensorimotor cues influence ensemble performance is that
of conducting. Conductors typically use both simple and complex gestures to direct
an ensemble of musicians who play different musical parts on a variety of instru-
ments. Luck and Toiviainen (2006) captured the movements of a conductor's ges-
tures during a 20-min performance. One hypothesis tested was that the musicians
would synchronize primarily with the auditory cues of their fellow performers, while
following the visual cues of the conductor in a looser fashion. The timing of the con-
ductor's baton motions was cross-correlated with the timing of the ensemble's perfor-
mance, measured by the beat rate as specified in the audio signal. The performances
were categorized on the basis of the clarity of the beat as communicated by the con-
ductor. The ensemble's performance tended to be more synchronous with (higher
cross-correlations and smaller lag between) the conductor's movements for pieces
designated as having a clear beat. Thus, the real-world situation of ensemble perfor-
mers who synchronize with a conductor while hearing other performers suggests that
sensorimotor integration of one's own performance with one's acoustic/visual envi-
ronment becomes more complex than simple models to date can capture.
Sociological factors influence motion cues in ensemble performance as well.
Davidson and Good (2002) videotaped and coded string ensemble performers'
movements for extramusical interpersonal dynamics such as the roles assumed by
different members and comments about performance anxiety. In addition, comments
about the coordination of the content were made, including tempo changes and style
of attacks. These comments were compared with eye gaze by individual performers,
418 Caroline Palmer 10. Music Performance: Movement and Coor~

and the movement gestures (with arm gestures, bowing movements, and head move- variety of performance settings. Dei
ments) of exits and entrances of different parts that performers played. The authors methods, current theory of performa
reported a correlation between the performers' movement size (large arm or head power. Future lines of research that
movements) and the size of the sound change (loud or soft). Related findings were with children who learn to perform t(
reported for pianists preparing duets (Williamon & Davidson, 2002); analyses of tion, dynamical systems, and fundam
video recordings over several practice sessions indicated that the pianists increased coordination skills. Also important .
their use of nonverbal gestures and eye contact during practice sessions to increase individual performance to group pe
their coordination at locations in the music identified by pianists as important or dif- development, and the application of
ficult. Maduell and Wing (2007) studied nonverbal and social factors in a flamenco cephalography and transcranial magi
ensemble composed of a dancer, singer, clapper (palmera), and guitarist. Nonverbal work that has just begun to devel
cues for rhythmic control were observed for each performer; head and foot move- volume). In sum, this era is an exce
ments were most common, and the dancer as focal point of the group used the most musicians.
rhythmic cues. The authors propose a network of control structures in which the
focus, or relative importance of each ensemble performer's part, is determined
mainly by musical factors and the status of each ensemble performer is determined
mainly by social factors such as experience and knowledge. Although there is little Acknowledgments
measurement of ensemble motion reported to date, these findings are suggestive that
the timing of nonverbal cues that arise from social as well as musical factors can be The research reported here was fund
critical for successful ensemble performance. Accelerator A ward, and a Canada Rese
A final consideration is how people learn to coordinate their movements with Loehr for comments on an earlier draft ot
others, especially during childhood. The capacity to synchronize body movements
with an external rhythm is fundamental to music, dance, and activities such as car-
rying heavy objects or walking together. A few studies have begun to examine how
children learn to spontaneously synchronize their body movements to an external References
beat. Kirschner and Tomasello (2008) asked children 2-5 years old to drum along
with a human partner, with a drumming machine, or with a drum sound from a Ashley, R. (2002). Don't change a hair fa
speaker. When drumming with the experimenter, children as young as 2 years old 311-332.
displayed a smaller variance in their asynchronies with the underlying isochronous Askenfelt, A. (1986). Measurement of bo
beat that was aligned with the experimenter's beat. Both nonsocial conditions of the Acoustical Society of America,
Askenfelt, A. (1989). Measurement of tJ
(playing with a drumming machine or with a drum sound) yielded a larger variance
bridge distance, dynamic range, an
in asynchronies. Because the social condition is the only one in which both visual
Society of America, 86, 503-517.
and auditory cues were present, it is not clear whether improved synchronization Brodsky, W., Kessler, Y., Rubinstein, Bo'
was due specifically to the types of sensory information or to the social presence of representation of music notation:
the partner. Nonetheless, this study and more recent findings that joint music mak- Psychology: Human Perception and
ing by 4-year-olds led to increased spontaneous cooperative and helpful behavior, Chaffin, R., & Irnreh, G. (2002). Practicin
compared with a matched control condition that lacked joint music making Psychological Science, 13, 342-349.
(Kirschner & Tomasello, 2009), opens the door for several paradigms that address Chagnon, M., Campbell, L., & Wanderlf
hypotheses of how people learn to coordinate with their fellow musicians. techniques to describe ancillary ge
Canada: McGill University.
Dahl, S. (2004). Playing the accent: Con
rhythm performed by four drummers.
Dalla Bella, S., & Palmer, C. (2011).
IV. Summary kinematics in piano performance.
0020518
Novel methods of capturing empirical measurements of music performance have Davidson, J. W. (1993). Visual perception
yielded additional in sights into the online use of multiple sensory systems in a musicians. Psychology of Music, 21,
 Caroline Palmer
bowing movements, and head move-
; that performers played. The authors
, movement size (large arm or head
(loud or soft). Related findings were
Ion & Davidson, 2002); analyses of
; indicated that the pianists increased
t during practice sessions to increase
ttified by pianists as important or dif-
erbal and social factors in a flamenco
~r(palmera), and guitarist. Nonverbal
.ach performer; head and foot move-
ocal point of the group used the most
~k of control structures in which the
ible performer's part, is determined
eh ensemble performer is determined
id knowledge. Although there is little
late, these findings are suggestive that
)cial as well as musical factors can be
to coordinate their movements with
city to synchronize body movements
sic, dance, and activities such as car-
IV studies have begun to examine how
:heir body movements to an external
.hildren 2-5 years old to drum along
chine, or with a drum sound from a
Iter, children as young as 2 years old
lilies with the underlying isochronous
:r's beat. Both nonsocial conditions
irum sound) yielded a larger variance
is the only one in which both visual
ar whether improved synchronization
formation or to the social presence of
recent findings that joint music mak-
ius cooperative and helpful behavior,
m that lacked joint music making
or for several paradigms that address
with their fellow musicians.
rrements of music performance have
tse of multiple sensory systems in a
10. Music Performance: Movement and Coordination 419
variety of performance settings. Despite the wealth of data available from these
methods, current theory of performance awaits an equivalent jump in theoretical
power. Future lines of research that should prove fruitful include further studies
with children who learn to perform together, as related to theories of action simula-
tion, dynamical systems, and fundamental questions about the evolution of humans'
coordination skills. Also important is the scaling up of computational theories of
individual performance to group performance, an area that is already undergoing
development, and the application of brain imaging techniques such as electroen-
cephalography and transcranial magnetic stimulation to joint behaviors, a line of
work that has just begun to develop fruitful techniques (see Chapter 14, this
volume). In sum, this era is an excellent time to conduct research with performing
musicians.
Ackn owLedgments
The research reported here was funded in part by NSERC Grant 298173, NSERC
Accelerator Award, and a Canada Research Chair to the author. Thanks are due to Janeen
Loehr for comments on an earlier draft of this chapter.
References
Ashley, R. (2002). Don't change a hair for me: The art of jazz rubato. Music Perception, 19,
311-332.
Askenfelt, A. (1986). Measurement of bow motion and bow force in violin playing. Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 80, 1007-1015.
Askenfelt, A. (1989). Measurement of the bowing parameters in violin playing. II: Bow-
bridge distance, dynamic range, and limits of bow force. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 86, 503-517.
Brodsky, W., Kessler, Y., Rubinstein, B.-S., Ginsborg, J., & Henik, A. (2008). The mental
representation of music notation: Notational audiation. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 427 -445.
Chaffin, R., & Imreh, G. (2002). Practicing perfection: Piano performance as expert memory.
Psychological Science, 13, 342-349.
Chagnon, M., Campbell, L., & Wanderley, M. M. (2005). On the use of Laban-Bartenieff
techniques to describe ancillary gestures of clarinetists (working paper). Montreal,
·Canada: McGill University.
Dahl, S. (2004). Playing the accent: Comparing striking velocity and timing in an ostinato
rhythm performed by four drummers. Acta Acustica, 90, 762-776.
Dalla Bella, S., & Palmer, C. (20n). Rate effects on timing, key velocity, and finger
kinematics in piano performance. PLoS ONE, 6, e20518. doi: 10. 13711joumal.pone.
0020518
Davidson, J. W. (1993). Visual perception of performance manner in the movements of solo
musicians. Psychology of Music, 21, 103-113.
420 Caroline Palmer 10. Music Performance: Movement and CO(

Davidson, J. W. (1995). What does the visual information contained in music performances Loehr, J. D., & Palmer, C. (2007). Cog
offer the observer? Some preliminary thoughts. In R. Steinberg (Ed.), Music and the tapping. Experimental Brain Rese.
mind machine (pp. 105-114). Berlin, Germany: Springer. Loehr, J. D., & Palmer, C. (2009a). S
Davidson, J. W. (2002). Understanding the expressive movements of a solo pianist. and motion in tapping. Journal of
Musikpsychologie, 16, 9-3l. Loehr, J. D., & Palmer, C. (2009b). SI
Davidson, J. W., & Good, J. M. M. (2002). Social and musical co-ordination between mem- to synchronization. Music Percept
bers of a string quartet: An exploratory study. Psychology of Music, 30, 186-20l. Loehr, J. D., & Palmer, C. (2011). T,
Delalande, F. (1988). La gestique de Gould. In G. Guertain (Ed.), Glenn Gould pluriel Quarterly Journal of Experimenta
(pp. 85-111). Quebec City, Canada: Louise Courteau Editrice. Luck, G., & Toiviainen, P. (2006). El
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice gestures: An automated feature-ex
in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406. MacKay, D. G. (1987). The organi
Friberg, A., & Sundstrom, A. (2002). Swing ratios and ensemble timing in jazz performance: Springer- Verlag.
Evidence for a common rhythmic pattern. Music Perception, 19, 333-349. Maduell, M., & Wing, A. M. (2007).
Gabrielsson, A. (1999). Music performance. In D. Deutsch (Ed.), Psychology of music (2nd Psychology of Music, 35, 591-6].'
ed., pp. 501-602). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Moore, G. P., & Chen, J. (2010). Tim
Godoy, R. 1., & Leman, M. (2010). Musical gestures: Sound, movement, and meaning. Cybernetics, 103, 401-414.
New York, NY: Routledge. Naveda, L., & Leman, M. (2011). 'n
Goebl, W., & Palmer, C. (2008). Tactile feedback and timing accuracy in piano perfor- gestures using topological gesture
mance. Experimental Brain Research, 186,471-479. Overholt, D., Thompson, J., Putnam, I
Goebl, W., & Palmer, C. (2009). Synchronization of timing and motion among performing multimodal system for gesture ree
musicians. Music Perception, 26, 427-438. Music Journal, 33, 69-82.
Hommel, B., Musseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz., W. (2001). The theory of event coding Palmer, C. (1989). Mapping music
(TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Experimental Psychology: Human
Sciences, 24,849-937. Palmer, C. (1997). Music performance.
Howell, P. (2004). Assessment of some contemporary theories of stuttering that apply to Palmer, C. (2005). Sequence memc
spontaneous speech. Contemporary Issues in Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Psychological Science, 14, 247-2.
39, 122-139. Palmer, c., & Krumhansl, C. L. (1990)
HowelI, P., PowelI, D. J., & Khan, 1. (1983). Amplitude contour of the delayed signal and Experimental Psychology: Human
interference in delayed auditory feedback tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Palmer, c., Koopmans, E., Loehr, J. I
Human Perception & Performance, 9, 772-784. and temporal accuracy in clarinet I
Keller, P. E., & Appel, M. (2010). Individual differences, auditory imagery, and the coordina- Palmer, c., & Loehr, J. D. (2012). Mee
tion of body movements and sounds in musical ensembles. Music Perception, 28, 27 -46. Bernstein, & A. Rozin (Eds.), .
Keller, P. E., Knoblich, G., & Repp, B. H. (2007). Pianists duet better when they play with Narmour: FestschriJt Series. Hillsc
themselves: On the possible role of action simulation in synchronization. Consciousness Palmer, C., & Pfordresher, P. Q. (2C
and Cognition, 16, 102-11l. Psychological Review, 110,683-7
Kendall, R. A., & Carterette, E. C. (1990). The communication of musical expression. Music Pecenka, N., & Keller, P. (2011). The
Perception, 8, 129-164. sensorimotor synchronization. Exp,
Kirschner, S., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Joint drumming: Social context facilitates synchroni- Pfordresher, P. Q., & Dalla BelIa, S.
zation in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 299-314. Journal of Experimental Psycholog
Kirschner, S., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Joint music making promotes prosocial behavior in Ramsay, J. 0., & Silverman, B. W. (21
4-year-old children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 354-364. NY: Springer.
Konvalinka, I., Vuust, P., Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. D. (2010). Follow you, follow me: Rasch, R. A. (1979). Synchronization in
Continuous mutual prediction and adaptation in joint tapping. Quarterly Journal of Repp, B. H. (2001). Processes underlyi
Experimental Psychology, 63, 2220-2230. chronization. Human Movement Se
Large, E. W., Fink, P., & Kelso, S. J. (2002). Tracking simple and complex sequences. Repp, B. H. (1993). Music as motion:
Psychological Research, 66, 3-17. und Bewegung in der Musik. Psyc!
Loehr, J. D., Large, E. W., & Palmer, C. (2011). Temporal coordination and adaptation to Repp, B. H., & Keller, P. E. (2010). Se
rate change in music performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human timing perturbations depends on p
Perception and Performance, 37,1292-1309. 202,101-110.
 Caroline Palmer
rnation contained in music performances
Is. In R. Steinberg (Ed.), Music and the
I: Springer.
iressive movements of a solo pianist.
and musical co-ordination between mem-
Psychology of Music, 30, 186-201.
G. Guertain (Ed.), Glenn Gould pluriel
'ourteau Editrice.
:. (1993). The role of deliberate practice
iological Review, 100, 363-406.
md ensemble timing in jazz performance:
ic Perception, 19, 333-349.
Deutsch (Ed.), Psychology of music (2nd
Press.
stures: Sound, movement, and meaning.
:k and timing accuracy in piano perfor-
[-479.
of timing and motion among performing
z., W. (2001). The theory of event coding
action planning. Behavioral and Brain
orary theories of stuttering that apply to
Communicative Sciences and Disorders,
rlitude contour of the delayed signal and
ks. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
;4.
ences, auditory imagery, and the coordina-
ensembles. Music Perception, 28, 27-46.
pianists duet better when they play with
ulation in synchronization. Consciousness
rununication of musical expression. Music
ming: Social context facilitates synchroni-
imental Child Psychology, 102, 299-314.
IC making promotes prosocial behavior in
lavior, 31, 354-364.
1, C. D. (2010). Follow you, follow me:
1 in joint tapping. Quarterly Journal of
lracking simple and complex sequences.
Temporal coordination and adaptation to
tl of Experimental Psychology: Human
10. Music Performance: Movement and Coordination 421
Loehr, J. D., & Palmer, C. (2007). Cognitive and biomechanical influences in pianists' finger
tapping. Experimental Brain Research, 178, 518-528.
Loehr, 1. D., & Palrner, C. (2009a). Sequential and biomechanical factors constrain timing
and motion in tapping. Journal of Motor Behavior, 41, 128-136.
Loehr,1. D., & Palmer, C. (2009b). Subdividing the beat: Auditory and motor contributions
to synchronization. Music Perception, 26, 415-425.
Loehr, J. D., & Palmer, C. (2011). Temporal coordination between performing musicians.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(11), 2153-2167.
Luck, G., & Toiviainen, P. (2006). Ensemble musicians' synchronization with conductors'
gestures: An automated feature-extraction analysis. Music Perception, 24, 189-200.
MacKay, D. G. (1987). The organization of perception and action. New York, NY:
Springer- Verlag.
Maduell, M., & Wing, A. M. (2007). The dynamics of ensemble: The case for flamenco.
Psychology of Music, 35, 591-627.
Moore, G. P., & Chen, 1. (2010). Timings and interactions of skilled musicians. Biological
Cybernetics, 103, 401-414.
Naveda, L., & Leman, M. (2011). The spatiotemporal representation of dance and music
gestures using topological gesture analysis (TGA). Music Perception, 28, 93-111.
Overholt, D., Thompson, J., Putnam, L., Bell, B., Kleban, J., & Sturm, B., et al. (2009). A
multimodal system for gesture recognition in interactive music performance. Computer
Music Journal, 33, 69-82.
Palmer, C. (1989). Mapping musical thought to musical performance. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 331-346.
Palrner, C. (1997). Music performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 115-138.
Palmer, C. (2005). Sequence memory in music performance. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 14, 247-250.
Palmer, c., & Krumhansl, C. L. (1990). Mental representations for musical meter. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 728-741.
Palmer, C., Koopmans, E., Loehr, 1. D., & Carter, C. (2009). Movement-related feedback
and temporal accuracy in clarinet performance. Music Perception, 26, 439-449.
Palmer, c., & Loehr, 1. D. (2012). Meeting of two minds in duet piano performance. In L. F.
Bernstein, & A. Rozin (Eds.), Musical implications: Essays in honor of Eugene
Narmour: Festschrift Series. Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press.
Palmer, C; & Pfordresher, P. Q. (2003). Incremental planning in sequence production.
Psychological Review, 110, 683-712.
Pecenka, N., & Keller, P. (2011). The role of temporal prediction abilities in interpersonal
sensorimotor synchronization. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 505-515.
Pfordresher, P. Q., & Dalla Bella, S. (2011). Delayed auditory feedback and movement.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 566-579.
Ramsay, 1. 0., & Silverman, B. W. (2005). Functional data analysis (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Springer.
Rasch, R. A. (1979). Synchronization in performed ensemble music. Acustica, 43,121-131.
Repp, B. H. (2001). Processes underlying adaptation to tempo changes in sensorimotor syn-
chronization. Human Movement Science, 20, 277-312.
Repp, B. H. (1993). Music as motion: A synopsis of Alexander Truslit's (1938) Gestaltung
und Bewegung in der Musik. Psychology of Music, 21, 48-72.
Repp, B. H., & Keller, P. E. (2010). Self versus other in piano performance: Detectabilityof
timing perturbations depends on personal playing style. Experimental Brain Research,
202, 101-110.
422 Caroline Palmer

Rossing, T. D., Sundberg, J., & Ternstrom, S. (1986). Acoustic comparisons of soprano solo
and choir singing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 79, 1975-1981.
Schober, M., & Levine, M. F. (2011). Visual and auditory cues in jazz musicians' ensemble
performance. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Performance Science.
Retrieved from <www.legacyweb.rcm.ac.uklcacheIfl0026838.pdf>
11 Musical D
Semjen, A., Schulze, H. H., & Vorberg, D. (2000). Timing precision in continuation and syn- LaureL J. Train!
chronization tapping. Psychological Research, 63,137-147.
Shaffer, L. H. (1984). Timing in solo and duet piano performances. Quarterly Journal of *Department of Psyc
Experimental Psychology, 36,577-595. University, Hamiltor
Sloboda, J. A. S. (1984). Experimental studies of music reading: A review. Music University of Nevade
Perception, 2, 222-236.
Toiviainen, P., Luck, G., & Thompson, M. R. (2010). Embodied meter: Hierarchical eigen-
modes in music-induced movement. Music Perception, 28, 59-70.
Vines, B. W., Krumhansl, C. L., Wanderley, M. M., & Levitin, D. J. (2006). Cross-modal
interactions in the perception of musical performance. Cognition, 101, 80-103.
Wanderley, M. M. (2002). Quantitative analysis of non-obvious performer gestures. I. Origins of Music
In 1. Wachsmuth, & T. Sowa (Eds.), Gesture and sign languages in human-
computer interaction (pp. 241-253). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag. Music is a species-specific commu
Wanderley, M. M., Vines, B., Middleton, N., McKay, c., & Hatch, W. (2005). The musical of genetic constraints and environ
significance of clarinetists' ancillary gestures: An exploration of the field. Journal of musical perception, such as the USI
New Music Research, 34, 97-113. nize successive sound events, app
Williamon, A., & Davidson, 1. W. (2002). Exploring eo-performer communication. Musicae
capacities and constraints of the 1
Scientiae, 6, 53-72.
many different musical systems exi
formal musical training, children 1
the musical system(s) in their envin
During the past couple of dec
becoming specialized for processi
early in development and takes n
most immature animals at birth a
development. Although human adt
genetic makeup, they have relativ
This outcome appears to be achiev
ence-driven neural plasticity. This
butes to the unique capacity of I
such as music and language, in wl
produced. This generative quality
music systems, such that each gel
musical system and incorporate f
new genres.
From an evolutionary perspectiv
recognized even by Darwin (1871),
rious faculties of the human species
theoretical perspectives have been I
2008; Falk, 2004, 2009; Fitch, 20(
McDermott & Hauser, 2005; Mille
Wallin, Merker, & Brown, 2000).

The Psychology of Music. DOl: http://dx.doi.orgllO.10ll

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.