Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Perceptual Approach Forms
Perceptual Approach Forms
Perceptual Approach Forms
ContemporaryMusic Review,
1989, Vol. 4, pp. 213-230
Photocopying permitted by license only
Irene Deli6ge
214 IrdneDelidge
theory. Our focus here is on a subsequent stage of processing, that is to say access
to hierarchically superior levels, or groupings of groups. An initial concern is to
define the mechanisms on which such access is based.
Noizet (1974-75) states that perceiving "supposes an organism able to differentiate . . . ultimately concluding with an identification of objects or events."
Between these initial and final stages, the perceptual act traverses intermediate
stages comparing the current, newly delimited percept with previously known
and memorized percepts. An appreciation emerges which is an evaluation in
terms of degrees of similarity or contrast in relation to points of reference acquired
in the more or less distant past.
Concerning musical perception, it has been postulated (L Deli6ge, 1987a) that
a mechanism for extracting pertinent cues (or indices) presented by the properties of
the musical surface is intrinsically linked to the formation of rhythmic groups. At
this basic stage of differentiation, auditory perception detects successive sounds
and combines them in a series of groups whose size is limited to the psychological
present or short-term memory capacity (Fraisse, 1974, p. 79). Cues thus extracted
become abbreviations used to lighten the load on memory storage.
The concept of cue, or index, as used here is similar to the one suggested by
Charles S. Peirce as a type of sign. Referring to indices, he wrote: "An index is a
sign which refers to the Object that it denotes by virtue of being really affected by
that Object" (Peirce, 1974: 2.248, p. 140). Elsewhere, he added that it points to the
very thing or event evoked "because it is in dynamical (including spatial) connection both with the individual object, on the one hand, and with the senses or
memory of the person for whom it serves as a sign, on the other hand" (2.305, p.
170).
A cue should therefore facilitate the formation of groupings of groups at various
hierarchical levels and enable the totality of the work to be circumscribed. These
cues are nothing other than input tags. Most of them are temporary and fleeting,
and not all are retained in memory. For a "natural selection" occurs in which only
the strongest cues survive. These then act as signals, able to signpost the temporal
progress of the work through their recurrent appearance.
Cues play an essential role in the perception of the fundamental articulations of
a musical work. Once extracted, they acquire value as reference points for
strategies of comparison; they enable structures to be identified and filed. Cues
contain the invariants within the discourse, according to which a continual process
of evaluating new input can be organized: a grouping of groups undergoing
formation can be extended to encompass new candidates if the same type of
invariant is recognized. A degree of variation is tolerated (Smyth, Morris, Levy &
Ellis, 1987, p. 48), but when a contrasting structure is noted or predicted (depending on whether the piece being listened to is familiar or not), the process is blocked
and the boundary of the grouping under formation is set. This boundary can
potentially become the leading cue for a new combination of units. It follows from
the above that the process of extracting cues, from within the work or during successive listening sessions, progressively elaborates a memory imprint resulting
from the accumulation of more or less varied reiterations. This constitutes a sort
of summary (I. Deli~ge, 1987a) comprised of the major coordinates of a set of
percepts, the specific details of each example "merging" into a single standard
model, i
Two organizational principles, therefore, structure analytical listening to
musical form: the principle of SAMENESS cements together structures which
Experiments
The processes just discussed were tested in three experiments. The formation of
groupings of groups in listening to authentic pieces of music was studied in the
first two, while the third reversed the approach and involved localizing extracts
within groupings established by the first experiment. This first experiment is
published elsewhere (I. Deli6ge & E1 Ahmadi, in press), but the results will be
summarized here to lend coherence to this article.
This study extends prior observations made concerning Lerdahl & Jackendoff's
grouping theory (I. Deli6ge, 1987b), here using a broader level of grouping. That
research had shown that subjects' musical training had only a weak effect on their
aptitude to perceive rhythmic groups. Consequently, the anticipated results of
this study should logically reflect this already noted tendency. The formation of
groupings is a question of preference: strictly speaking, there is no "right" or
"wrong" answer. The organization of groupings on the basis of index extraction,
as hypothesized here, should nevertheless reveal a stronger segmentation
tendency when contrasting structures are introduced, that is to say at the moment
that an invariant-bearing index ceases to be maintained. Finally, the test involving
localizing extracts in their original grouping should provide a check on the
efficiency of the index extraction process. For it is at this stage that the development
of the imprint phenomenon resulting from their reiteration should take place.
Methodology
Stimuli
The choice of musical materials for the experiments posed a tricky methodological
problem as regards observing the degree to which musical training influences
grouping aptitude. It therefore seemed desirable to use pieces of contemporary
music in order to resolve certain difficulties. Without pretending that it is easy to
gather data free of possible influence, such material focused on the hypothesis by
comparing the performance of professional musicians with that of non-musicians
(for whom this represented their first contact with the music.)
Selection criteria from among the extensive repertoire available had to fulfill
two other requirements. The first involved employing two works of the same
duration so that subjects would undergo experimental sessions of equal length
and effort, while the second deliberately aimed at testing the hypothesis of index
extraction itself. This is w h y two experiments were conducted using works clearly
differentiated in terms of compositional approach. In one, Berio's Sequenza VI,
the invariant plays an important role, which should tend to favor the
216 IreneDelidge
grouping of groups as a function of the similarity of cues encountered. In the other
piece, Boulez' Eclat, it is a question of a framework in which relatively independent sound states are linked together. At first sight, the invariant is not a dominating compositional feature of Eclat: cue extraction should therefore logically be
limited to a more local operation and be less effective in constituting large groupings. This twin perspective provided results which could be compared, thus
offering a better assessment of the validity of the hypothesis.
In an effort to simplify the subjects' task of segmentation and to obtain cleaner
data, it was also decided to use works which did not involve the superimposition
or shifting of different rhythmic groups characteristic of complex counterpoint. 2
For the third experiment, a set of forty-seven excerpts or groups of varying
length (five to ten seconds) were marked out in Berio's work following Lerdahl &
Jackendoff's Proximity, Slur-Rest and Intensification rules (1983, pp. 45 & 49).
Clean breaks were produced using a tape recording.
Subjects
All three experiments involved two categories of subjects from 18 to 35 years of
age: professional musicians fluent in contemporary music on the one hand, and
non-musicians (college or drama students) on the other.
The first experiment (Berio's Sequenza) was run on 18 musicians and 18 nonmusicians. In addition, as a point of reference, auditory analyses were performed
by two young composers.
The second experiment (Boulez' Eclat) was run on 16 subjects from each category,the non-musicians not having participated in the first experiment.
For the third experiment (Berio, localizing extracts), 12 musicians and 12 nonmusicians (all having participated in the first experiment) were involved.
Procedure
Hypotheses were tested through two distinct procedures:
a) To study the formation of groupings of groups on cue extraction (the first two
experiments), instructions were given to subjects to segment the work as a
function of perceived structures, that is to say to group together elements yielding
convenient associations which would justify their being connected together. The
segmentation exercise was open-ended, with no restraints imposed. As an analogy
- and above all to make the task clear to non-musicians - two comparisons were
suggested. The first involved demarcating architectural structures such as volumes
and basic dimensions, the second involved picking out the major organizational
structures of a written text, such as indentations, ends of paragraphs, and chapters.
Subjects heard the whole piece. Throughout every listening session, subjects
could refer to the time elapsed as displayed on a screen. They listened once to
familiarize themselves with the piece and to take notes relating to the instructions,
particularly noting the time elapsed at the spots where they wanted to establish
segmentation. This was followed by two other listenings, during which the
requested tasks were to be performed; the second of these was designed to
measure the degree of stability in segmentation judgments. Data was collected on
a Macintosh Plus microcomputer. The tape was synchronized with the startup of
218
E
0
oo
mira
~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~.-~
~.._=
r
m
o
i
r~
-=t.
.........................
]
i-----k\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\\~\~
mmm
i1
~ - ~ .................. ~ .
9 L" ~ ~1
. . . . . . . . --.
~,, ?,
Session 1
Session 2
Confirmations
1"30"
3'26"
3'52"
4"36"
5'45"
6'36"
8'04"
8"35"
8'52"
.0227
-.0519
.0375
---.0519
.0519
----.0137
.0227
.0375
---
-------.0519
--
f----$----~
~--- ~ ~ -
Example I
tccel.
- ~-~_~ ~ - ~ -
J'= ~)e
r--3-~
~'36"
.r77--S~
r-----s~
,~._ .~-
Ixmt..._.~
~- : ~
220 IrdneDeli~ge
:.~
.
Example
pont.~
~ o6
~ ..... [ .....J
,~. ~ _
,.
~
~-
~-.~
:JLL....~
~----.,
Example
~
~
, ,,
Example
~'_-"
'
~- ~*
~.r
,, - t
"~'"
I ~-
"
r~
ov
'
r~
...~,'--
a .~
n.,
ilw.
rpa.
6 (Examples 1-6 from Sequenza VI by Luciano Berio, 9 1970 by Universal Edition London,
Ltd, with the kind permission of Universal Edition AG Vienna.)
Example
Time
Session I
Session 2
3'25"
3'30"
3'35"
4'50"
5'15"
5'25"
7'45"
9'12"
9'40"
-.0506
--.0034
-.0506
-.0506
----------
Confirmations
------.0269
---
Hierarchization
.0328
-.0233
.0253
-.0556
.0384
.0439
--
221
~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 88
[-............~\\\\\\\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\~.~.,~"
[....-~\~.'.\\\\\\\\\\'~.t
,...,k~%xx\\\\\x'~\\\\\\\'.\}
~\\\\\\\\\\\\~ 9
k\\\\\\\\\\\\\~ |
r~\\\\\\\\\\\\\%\\~lt
|
Ix\\\t"
~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~
~\\\\\\\~
o
~\\\\\\x\\\\\\\\\\\\~
,.4
r"
.~
~\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
I~\\\\\\\\\\\\\'~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
"~\\\\\\\\\\
01~t I
~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~\\\\~
r
I
...........~......,......~
~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~
N'~\\\\\\\\\\\\\~"
"N
_4N\\\\\.,.\%1~"
~
,,~\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\'~
,ii~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\~-~i~
,..~..,."~
I\\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 4
~\\\\\\\\\Nk\N\\~\\\~\\\\\~
O...Q
'--~_xxx\\\\\\\~ "
F-- ~i\\\\\\\\\t
I
~\\\\\\'-.\\\t
~ 4-
222
r
8
_ i _ _
[,
bt~
e~
....d
--czzzz
-a
C~
r[
"G
r---
I
r~
N
./
./
q
e~
,4
~zz
,4
,4 *
e~
~zzz:
~zzzzzz
I
II
.2 *
I
J~
suo!i~lua~as~ua~ajk!paqloI
palnq!s~l~s~u!lq~!a~JoI~Ol
,d
T a b l e
Sourceof variation
d.f .
1,30
.92
.35 n.s.
1,30
1,30
1.43
3.25
.24 n.s.
.15 n.s.
i,30
.04
.84 n.s.
1,30
.42
.52 n.s.
or 3; cf. Procedure, above) attributed to the individual sequences (along the X-axis)
b y 16 subjects in each category.
Four major segments define the main groupings. A look at the score reveals the
appearance of m o r e m a r k e d contrasts at these points. At the beginning of the
piece, after a long solo piano cadenza, the m o v e m e n t toward a structure including
vibraphone, mandolin, and celeste (at roughly 1'15") is c o n v e y e d by the harp in
regular steps (cf. rehearsal n u m b e r 3 of the score). The c o m p o s e r then exploits the
diversity of timbre within the instrumental ensemble t h r o u g h the p r e d o m i n a n c e
accorded to cells of rapid passages, m o v i n g toward long resonances (bells,
glockenspiel, vibraphone) or to long-held trills. Boulez has spoken of this in terms
of a double d e v e l o p m e n t of temporal flow: one active, the other contemplative "elastic time" to be " p l a y e d like an accordian" (Le Temps Musical 1, Radio France/
IRCAM cassette). This a t m o s p h e r e continues u p to 4'50", giving way to several
sharp, specific s o u n d events, like u n e x p e c t e d flashes (rehearsal n u m b e r 14)
w h e r e the introduction of a r e s o n a n t structure creates a c o u n t e r - w e i g h t - a "cushion", to use Boulez' expression. A return to the piano solo at 5'35" (rehearsal
n u m b e r 16) then serves as "backdrop" (starting from rehearsal n u m b e r 17) for
other slow and occasional structures with r e s o n a n t sounds. This system
m e t a m o r p h o s e s (rehearsal n u m b e r 20) after a halt at roughly 7'16". The last major
perceived segmentation is finally i n t r o d u c e d after a long trill at 8'50" (rehearsal
n u m b e r 25) by a violent contrast in temporal flow.
In addition to this overview, it is w o r t h taking a closer look at the few additional
segments in Eclat (indicated by * in Figure 3) which yielded a m a r k e d perceptual
salience (greater than 50%). These four instances, once again n o t e d by nonmusicians only, are found in the first third of the piece where a rapid run gives way
to a trill and a long resonance (or the r e v e r s e - at rehearsal numbers 5, 6 and 7 in the
score) or w h e r e the piano enters (at rehearsal n u m b e r 9). It is therefore mainly a
question of pitch and timbre contrasts in both cases. As in the previous experiment,
these additional segments do not contradict the p r o p o s e d hypothesis.
A n o t h e r point in c o m m o n b e t w e e n the results of the two experiments is the
existence of a high degree of correlation b e t w e e n the statistically perceived
salience of the different points of segmentation (Figure 4) and the stability of
the non-musicians' behavior across the two experimental listening sessions
(r = .805). Similarly, this second experiment once again shows a high degree of
224 IrdneDelidge
Musicians
A
B
C
D
E
58.4
23.0
0.6
8.3
15.5
0.0
22.0
40.7
5.4
10.0
19.0
8.3
0.0
15.6
73.2
3.3
1.2
16.7
6.0
2.0
9.0
63.4
1.2
0.0
13.6
17.7
4.7
13.3
63.1
0.0
75.0
52.0
14.6
3.0
8.3
14.3
3.3
19.8
36.5
12.5
6.7
22.6
3.3
8.4
18.8
41.7
13.3
6.0
18.4
6.3
8.3
10.1
45.0
6.0
8.3
13.6
21.8
13.1
25.0
47.6
3.3
0.0
0.0
19.6
1.7
3.5
63.4
0.0
1.0
7.1
1.7
0.0
Non-musicians
A
B
C
D
E
F
Source of variation
a)
d.f.
46,1012
4.54
.0001
46,1012
1.11
.29
n.s.
1,22
1,22
1,22
1,22
1,22
1,22
.59
.96
25.03
4.98
2.10
.86
.45
.34
.0001
.04
.16
.36
n.s.
n.s.
46,1012
5.60
.0001
46,1012
1.10
.31
46,1012
4.85
.0001
46,1012
1.27
.11
b)
c)
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
It is a l s o i m p o r t a n t to p o i n t o u t t h a t p e r f o r m a n c e s v a r i e d a c c o r d i n g to t h e
s e c t i o n to w h i c h t h e e x c e r p t b e l o n g e d . S e c t i o n B g a v e t h e p o o r e s t r e s u l t s , for b o t h
m u s i c i a n s a n d n o n - m u s i c i a n s , w h i c h w a s p r e d i c t a b l e g i v e n t h e d e c r e a s e d specificity of t h i s s e c t i o n ' s c u e s ( w h i c h , as d e s c r i b e d a b o v e , p r e s e n t e d c e r t a i n
s i m i l a r i t i e s w i t h t h o s e of t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n as w e l l as S e c t i o n E). O n t h e o t h e r
hand, there was no difference between musicians and non-musicians concerning
S e c t i o n s A , B, E, a n d F, a l t h o u g h t h e c o n t r a r y w a s t h e c a s e for S e c t i o n s C a n d D.
It s h o u l d b e a d d e d t h a t e x c e r p t s f r o m t h r e e s e c t i o n s - A , B, a n d E - s h o w e d
g r e a t e r i n s t a b i l i t y i n t e r m s of b e i n g c o r r e c t l y l o c a l i z e d . T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n , t h e d a t a
for w h i c h is s h o w n in T a b l e 6, is e s p e c i a l l y c l e a r w h e n it is a q u e s t i o n of l o c a l i z i n g
e x c e r p t s f r o m s e c t i o n B. T h e p e r c e n t a g e of c o r r e c t a n s w e r s is p l a c e d a l o n g s i d e t h e
s u m of t h e p e r c e n t a g e s of a n s w e r s m i g r a t i n g to t h e o t h e r t w o s e c t i o n s : t h e c o m parison does not attain a truly significant difference.
O n t h e w h o l e , s u b j e c t s p e r f o r m e d t h i s t a s k in a fairly u n i f o r m w a y . T h e s c o r e s
of n o n - m u s i c i a n s a r e h o w e v e r b e t t e r for t h e o p e n i n g a n d c l o s i n g s e c t i o n s of t h e
w o r k , a s o p p o s e d to t h e c e n t r a l s e c t i o n s , w h i c h m i g h t i n d i c a t e t h e e x i s t e n c e
of p r i m a c y a n d r e c e n c y effects a s o b s e r v e d in t h e serial p o s i t i o n c u r v e s
for t h e recall of lists of w o r d s ( M u r d o c k , 1962). T h i s effect p e r h a p s d i m i n i s h e s
a s a r e s u l t of l e a r n i n g a n d p r a c t i c e , s i n c e it d i d n o t o c c u r a m o n g p r o f e s s i o n a l
musicians.
226
~~L_
Section of origin
Percentageof
correctly localized
excerpts
Percentageof
confusions
Level of
significance
Musicians
A
B
E
58.4
40.7
63.1
B + E = 35.6
A + E = 40.7
A + B = 34.5
X2 2d.f. =
4.109, p > .10
Non-musicians
A
B
E
52.
36.5
47.6
B+E=33.4
A + E = 36.4
A + B = 36.9
2d.f.=
1.825, p > .30
Conclusion
Three points were raised at the outset of these experiments: the potential influence
of musical training in g r o u p i n g processes a n d the h y p o t h e s e s of a cue extraction
m e c h a n i s m in p e r c e p t u a l analysis, in turn leading to the formation of imprints as
a function of their reiteration. Do a n s w e r s e m e r g e from the overall results
p r e s e n t e d here?
228 IreneDeli4ge
tested. The reasons for this should be sought and the analysis p u s h e d b e y o n d mere
grouping boundaries. Observation of surrounding structures showed clear
contrasts at these precise spots. What is heard before and after the caesura is clearly
different and signals specific belongingness in terms of groupings to be formed: one
cue ceases, another begins. Their presence enables belongingness (Prieto, 1975, p.
15) to be d e t e r m i n e d for a given group and to indicate the boundaries - which a
caesura alone cannot define, its main role of "pause" offering no other information.
If the two works selected are c o m p a r e d on the level of musical structure, cue
extraction on the basis on invariants was far more predictable in Berio's Sequenza
than in Boulez' Eclat. The obvious should be admitted, however: the effect of
s o u n d colors r e n e w e d by relatively individualized structures in Eclat progressively disappeared after the first three minutes of listening. A sort of assimilation
was p r o d u c e d on the basis of pitch and timbre effects, perceived here largely as
cues, leaving the role of demarcating groupings (and designating belongingness
to those groupings) once again to highly contrasting structures alone. Cues can
therefore be of several kinds - there is no pre-established rule on this point. It is
the specific instance which is the determining factor, though the role of cues should
be recognized as a basic mechanism in a perceptual approach to musical form.
Formation of Imprints
Results obtained in the procedure for localizing excerpts from Berio's piece reveal
a majority of correctly localized excerpts. The cue extracted leads to a precise
retrieval of the information and its specific localization. It should h o w e v e r be
noted that w h e n subjects had to localize an excerpt such as, in particular, the
glissandi chords heard toward the e n d of the piece (see Example 2, above) - a
passage containing cues rarely reiterated elsewhere - the n u m b e r of correct
responses increases. A greater n u m b e r of errors was recorded, on the other hand,
w h e n localizing excerpts containing cues e m p l o y e d more frequently. This observation m a y seem paradoxical at first sight. H o w can the drop in performance be
u n d e r s t o o d as normal w h e n the effect of repetition should have aided m e m o r y ?
Here it should be stressed that the cues which reappear in the composition are
usually not repeated in identical form. A varying degree of variation usually
accompanies such reiterations. What results is the "imprint" form of memorization in which only dominant traits extracted across all reiterations remain. Identification strategies thus become less precise and more vague, the exact encoding of
particular characteristics less certain, leading to the probable cause of the confusion
observed b e t w e e n Sections A, B, and E w h e r e invariants of the same type occur.
It should also be noted that the poorer results of non-musicians in the third
experiment and the greater possibility of interference b e t w e e n extracted cues
could indicate that the n u m b e r of cues they m a n a g e d to take in was smaller,
leading to the more r u d i m e n t a r y imprint formation and more m a r k e d inaccuracy
in the identification process. But it could be s u p p o s e d that the lack of musical
fluency requires non-musicians to u n d e r g o a greater n u m b e r of listening sessions
before a sufficiently rich and efficient imprint can be developed. One effect of
musical training would be d e m o n s t r a t e d here, then, in the poorer aptitude of
non-practitioners to memorize musical events.
To sum up, the psychological mechanism involved in analytical listening invoked both comparative strategies based on cues and imprints in the identification
Notes
1. An analogy can be drawn between the notion of imprint used here and a theory originally put forth
by Posner, Goldsmith & Welton (1967) and subsequently developed by others (notably Franks &
Bransford, 1971; Bransford & Franks, 1971; Solso & Raynis, 1982; Welker, 1982), which
demonstrated the existence of a process of identification based on a memorized prototype.
However, the concept of prototype may not really be appropriate here. For the concept of prototype, in everyday usage, refers to the primary exemplar, or model, of a whole series embodying
all of its fundamental features. Subsequent reproductions are (nearly) perfect copies rather than
variations in so far as the invariant dominates almost exclusively. The prototype is therefore a
unique example representing a whole set, a sort of "zero model" which precedes all the other
members of the series. Abdi (1986, p. 148) has pointed out that, in work done on the notion of pro~
totype, the "various members" of a series can share a certain "representativity gradient" in their
relationship to the series. The concept appears to have thus shifted toward a meaning which is
almost the opposite of its original definition. It is possible that this shift is due to interference
between the concept of prototype strictly speaking and the concept of category. For the notion of
typicality as proposed by Rosch (1973, 1975) is behind the concept of category, suggesting that a
class can be evoked by different representatives which all have the role of designating that class, the
role of what Abdi calls the "psychological tide-mark". The specificity of the term prototype has thus
undergone a certain transformation. At a time when these notions are being invoked to operate at
the level of the perception of musical form, prudence dictates that ambiguity be avoided by
eliminating terms that could lead to confusion. For the moment, then, it is a question here neither
of prototype nor of category, of imprint, that is to say, for the sake of repetition, a standard model
established by memory to sum up a set of information which shares invariants that are reiterated
with a certain emphasis.
2. It should be pointed out once again that this research aims only to shed light on individual perceptual behavior, and makes no claim to aesthetic judgment concerning the works involved (much less
normative recommendations of a compositional or pedagogical nature).
3. Given limited space, the examples raised concerning Eclat are not reproduced here. They can be
easily located in the score, to which the reader is referred (Universal Edition UE 14283).
References
Abdi, H. (1986) La m~moire s4mantique. Une fille de l'intelligence artificielle et de la psychologie:
quelques 616ments biographiques... Psychologic,Intelligenceartificielleet automatique, Bonnet/Hoc/
Tiberghien (eds.) Brussels: Mardaga.
Deli~ge, I. (1987a) Le parall61isme, support d'une analyse auditive de la musique: vers un module des
parcours cognitifs de l'information musicale. Application au Syrinx de Debussy. Analyse Musicale, 6,
73-39.
Deli~ge, I. (1987b) Grouping conditions in listening to music: An approach to Lerdahl & Jackendoff's
grouping preference rules. Music Perception, 4, 325-360.
Deli~ge, I. & E1 Ahmadi, A. (1989) M6canismes d'extraction d'indices dans le groupement. Etude de
perception sur la Sequenza VI pour alto solo de Luciano Berio. Acres du Symposium Composition et
Perception musicales, 1987, University of Geneva, Contrechamps, 10, 85-104. Traduction anglaise,
Mechanisms of cue extraction in musical groupings, to appear, Psychology of Music.
Fraisse, P. (1967) La psychologie du temps. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Fraisse, P. (1974) La psychologie du rythme. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Franks, J.J. & Bransford, J.D. (1971) Abstraction of visual patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
90, 65-74.
Lerdahl, F. & Jackendoff R. (1983) A Generative Theory of Tonal Music. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Moore, B.C.J. (1982) An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing, London, New York: Academic Press.
Murdock, B. Jr. (1962) The serial position effect in free recall, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 482488.
Noizet, G.(1974-75) Les perceptions. Bulletin de Psychologie, 314, XXVIII, 1~6, 167-205.
Peirce, C.S. (1974) Collected Works, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Posner, M.I., Goldsmith, R. & Welton, K.E. Jr. (1967) Perceived distance and the classification of
distorted patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 28-38.
Prieto, L.J. (1975) Pertinence et pratique. Paris: Minuit.
Rosch, E. (1973) Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328-350.
Rosch, E. (1975) Cognitive reference points. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 104, 192-233.
Smyth, M., Morris, P.E., Levy, P. & Ellis, A.W. (1987) Cognition in Action, Hillsdale, New Jersey: L.
Erlbaum Associates.
Solso, R.L. & Raynis, S.A. (1982) Transfer of prototypes based on visual, tactual and kinesthetic
exemplars. American Journal of Psychology, 95, 13-29.
Welker,R. (1982) Abstraction of themes from melodic variations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 8
(3), 435--447