220 Sara J. Philibotte, Stephen Spivack, Nathaniel H.
Spilka, Ian Passman, & Pascal Wallisch
T H E W H O L E I S N O T D I F F E R E N T F R O M I T S PA RT S :
M U S I C E XC E R P T S A R E R E P R E S E N TAT I V E O F S O N G S
S A R A J. P H I L I B O T T E , S T E P H E N S P I VAC K ,
N AT HA N I E L H. S P I L K A , I A N PA S S M A N , &
PA S C A L WA L L I S C H
New York University
MUSIC PSYCHOLOGY HAS A LONG HISTORY, BUT
the question of whether brief music excerpts are repre-
sentative of whole songs has been largely unaddressed.
Here, we explore whether preference and familiarity
ratings in response to excerpts are predictive of these
ratings in response to whole songs. We asked 643 parti-
cipants to judge 3,120 excerpts of varying durations
taken from different sections of 260 songs from a broad
range of genres and time periods in terms of preference
and familiarity. We found that within the range of dura-
tions commonly used in music research, responses to
excerpts are strongly predictive of whole song affect and
cognition, with only minor effects of duration and loca-
tion within the song. We concluded that preference and
familiarity ratings in response to brief music excerpts
are representative of the responses to whole songs. Even
the shortest excerpt duration that is commonly used in
research yields preference and familiarity ratings that
are close to those for whole songs, suggesting that lis-
teners are able to rapidly and reliably ascertain recog-
nition as well as preference and familiarity ratings of
whole songs.
Received: April 20, 2018, accepted December 19, 2022.
Key words: music, individual differences, rating, recog-
nition, methodology
M
USIC CAN EVOKE AFFECTIVE RESPONSES,
which has been studied empirically. Some of
the work on the elicitation of emotions with
music employs whole songs (Grewe et al., 2007; Grewe
et al., 2009), whereas other studies utilize brief excerpts
(De Vries, 1991; Kreutz et al., 2008; Krumhansl, 1997).
A related line of research pertains to the question of
what determines music preference more generally.
Again, some use whole songs (Schäfer & Sedlmeier,
2010) whereas others use excerpts to address this ques-
tion (Rentfrow et al., 2011). There are good reasons for
Music Perception, VOLUM E 40, ISSU E 3, PP. 220–236, IS S N 0730-7829, EL ECTR ONI C ISSN 1533-8312. © 2023 B Y THE R E GE N TS OF THE UN IV E RS I T Y O F CA LI FOR NIA A LL
R IG HTS RES ERV ED . PLEASE DIR ECT ALL REQ UEST S F OR PER MISSION T O PHOT O COPY OR R EPRO DUC E A RTI CLE CONT ENT T HRO UGH T HE UNI VE R S IT Y OF CALI FO RNIA P R E SS ’ S
R EPR INT S AN D P E R M I S S I O NS W E B PAG E , HT T PS :// W W W. UCPR ESS . E D U / JOU RNA LS / R E P RI NTS - PERMISSI ONS . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/ M P.2023.40.3.220
this diversity of approaches: the average song in popular
music is about 3–4 minutes long (Allain, 2014). As there
are limits on the attention and time of research partici-
pants, using whole songs in an experiment curbs the
number of different pieces that can be used in any given
study; indeed, such studies typically use less than 10
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023
distinct pieces. This is a concern because music is inher-
ently complex—varying in many dimensions—so pick-
ing only a few pieces runs the risk of undersampling the
underlying stimulus space of music (Lundin, 1953;
Prince, 2011). In contrast, using brief excerpts as the
stimulus material enables experimenters to employ
many different music selections in the same study,
which in turn allows for a more thorough coverage of
the underlying stimulus space. However, this approach
runs the risk that these excerpts are not representative of
the whole songs from which they were extracted. In
other words, in any given study, music researchers face
an inherent tradeoff between better coverage of the
stimulus space of music or better coverage of individual
songs.
Whether the results gained from these different
approaches can inform each other depends on the
answers to two questions:
1. How representative are the excerpts of the songs
that from which they were sampled?
2. How much do these results depend on the specific
way in which the excerpts were sampled?
To our knowledge, the answer to the first question has
not been studied empirically. Whereas some studies
have investigated how quickly participants can make
reliable aesthetic judgments about excerpts (Belfi
et al., 2018), none have explicitly compared the rating
of excerpts to whole songs. In other words, the answer
to this question remains open. Meanwhile, the field
simply relies on the assumption that excerpts are in fact
representative of songs. This might be the case, but there
are concerns about both internal and external validity.
For instance, it is conceivable that the long-term tem-
poral structure of a song matters in a way that can—in
principle—not be captured by brief excerpts. In terms of
external validity, most people listen to whole songs, not
excerpts, when listening to music. Therefore, results

from the study of ‘‘music’’ that relies solely on excerpts
could be misleading if this assumption does not hold.
In terms of the second question, there is a wide range
of stimulus durations commonly used in music research
that utilizes excerpts (also referred to as ‘‘selections,’’
‘‘snippets,’’ or ‘‘clips’’ in some of these publications). This
duration range spans from around 5 seconds (Krum-
hansl, 2017; Krumhansl & Zupnick, 2013), to about 9
seconds (Peretz et al., 1998), to a ‘‘very short’’ 14 seconds
(Mehr at al., 2018), to 15 seconds (Belfi et al., 2016,
Rentfrow et al., 2011), to 30 seconds (McCown et al.,
1997), and up to 2 minutes (Zentner et al., 2008), but it
is unclear how this choice affects aesthetic judgments.
Sometimes, even shorter (e.g., Belfi et al., 2018; Mace
et al., 2012) and longer pieces are used (e.g., Vuoskoski
et al., 2012; Warrenburg, 2020). In addition, sometimes
this excerpt may be taken from the chorus (Krumhansl,
2017; Krumhansl & Zupnick, 2013), sometimes from
a ‘‘highly recognizable part of the song’’ (Belfi et al.,
2016), or sometimes from ‘‘melodic lines’’ of a song (Per-
etz et al., 1998). At other times, the clips are simply
whatever is provided by iTunes (Barrett et al., 2010). This
might matter, as the sonic properties of a song could be
different in different parts of a song. For example, the
sonic properties of the introduction might be different
from those of the chorus, which might in turn be differ-
ent from those of the verse. Often, it is not specified at all
how the excerpts were sampled from the song (Kreutz
et al., 2008; Rentfrow et al., 2011; Vuouskoski et al., 2012),
only that excerpts—with otherwise unknown proper-
ties—were used, rendering it unclear what research par-
ticipants actually listened to. This is a concern in terms of
the potential replicability of this research, which is an
increasingly important matter (Camerer et al., 2018;
Open Science Collaboration 2015).
In this study, we aim to address these two related
questions in order to quantify how representative
excerpts are of their song of origin and whether affective
and cognitive judgments are affected by duration or
location of the excerpts.
Method
PARTICIPANTS
Our sample consisted of New York University under-
graduate students as well as residents of the greater New
York City area (age range = 17 to 87 years, mean = 21.3
years, median = 20 years). Our participants (n = 643)
completed the study in a single, in-person two-hour
session. All participants either received course credit
or were compensated with $20. Participants were
recruited using the ‘‘NYU SONA subject pool’’ and
Brief Clips are Reliable Estimators of Whole Songs 221
through flyers, email lists, and advertisements in classes.
We used the data from all 638 participants (> 99%) that
finished the study for the analysis presented here.
MATERIALS
Song Selection
We selected 260 songs in total, with the goal of achieving
a selection that was representative of music styles com-
monly heard by U.S. listeners, including a wide range of
genres, time periods, and popularity. Thus, we included
152 pop songs from the Billboard popular music charts
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023
(2 randomly chosen ‘‘number-one songs’’ for each year
from 1940 through 2015), 52 diverse songs that were
judged by a panel of experts to be obscure (Rentfrow
et al., 2011), as well as 56 ‘‘iconic’’ songs from eight broad
music genres (classical, country, electronic, jazz, popular,
rap/hip-hop, rock, and R&B/soul). For the iconic songs,
a lab-wide panel composed of six researchers with vary-
ing music backgrounds determined seven sub-genres for
each of the eight broad genres (such as ‘‘Renaissance’’ and
‘‘Baroque’’ for classical music; and ‘‘Bebop’’ and ‘‘Fusion’’
for Jazz). For each of these 56 sub-genres, the panel voted
on one song to best represent the given sub-genre.
Excerpt Selection and Creation
For each of the 260 songs, we created 12 excerpts
(‘‘clips’’) with durations of precisely 5s, 10s, and 15s.
The clips were ‘‘nested’’ such that clips of all durations
had the same starting point; for example, if a clip started
at 1:10 minutes into the song, the 15s clip played from
1:10 minutes to 1:25 minutes, the 10s clip from 1:10
minutes to 1:20 minutes, and the 5s clip from 1:10
minutes to 1:15 minutes. We created the clips with a cus-
tom-built MATLAB program. We linearly faded the last
10% of all clips to silence (the last 1.5s, 1.0s, and 0.5s for
the 15s, 10s, and 5s clips, respectively).
To create these clips, we indexed the structure of all
songs according to when the intro (I), ‘‘outro’’ (O), cho-
rus (C), and ‘‘verse’’ (V) sections of the song began, with
the ‘‘verse’’ sections including verses, solos, bridges, and
any other portions of the song that did not fit into the
other categories. Doing so, we derived a standard song
structure: beginning with I, then V and C, with the V-C
combo repeated various (n) times, until O (the ending
section of the song). This algorithm can be represented
as I þ (V*C)n þ O. For ‘‘standard’’ songs that followed
this format, another custom-built MATLAB program
randomized which I/O, C, or V portion to use for the
clip and when in that portion the clip should start. We
used these target starting points to create the clips but
manually ensured that the clips did not begin in the
middle of a music phrase.
222 Sara J. Philibotte, Stephen Spivack, Nathaniel H. Spilka, Ian Passman, & Pascal Wallisch

For example, if the output of the program indicated to
start the chorus clips at 0:23 minutes but this cut off
a phrase, we might start the clips at 0:24.1 minutes to
avoid cutting off the start of the music phrase, such as
when the lyrics begin or at the downbeat of the first
measure. We balanced the actual starting points, ensuring
that there were an even number of actual starting points
before and after the target starting points given by the
MATLAB program, such that the actual starting point
deviations from the suggested starting point for each
song were normally distributed with a mean of zero. The
instance, some songs did not have a chorus or clearly
delineated sections at all. For these songs, we used the
temporal distribution of the clips from the songs had
clearly delineated sections, in order to create a statistical
distribution of starting points that matched that of the
songs with a standard structure. In other words, we
found sections of these songs that corresponded to the
time point in which the chorus or verse typically started,
if there were a chorus or verse.
For each song, 9 of the 12 clips were created in the
systematic way detailed above (3 sections per clip dura-

Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023

actual clip starting points were all within a few seconds in
either direction of the target starting points. If any of the
chorus or verse sections overlapped, we created the first
section using the given starting point and then re-drew
the starting times for the other sections by running the
sampling program again. If the intro or outro was less
than 15 seconds, we used the first or last 15 seconds of
the song. At the end of this process, none of the clips
drawn from I/O, C or V had any overlap at all.
Some songs did not clearly follow this standard
structure (the remaining ‘‘non-standard’’ songs). For
tion, crossed with 3 clip durations). An additional 3
clips per song were chosen subjectively in the following
manner. The members of the selection panel indepen-
dently listened to all of the songs and voted on which
15s section of each song they considered to be the most
representative or characteristic of the entire song. The
panel discussed their chosen sections until a consensus
was reached among all members. We then created the
15s, 10s, and 5s clips for these representative sections
using the same nesting technique described earlier
(see Figure 1).

FIGURE 1. Schematic of how the excerpts were sampled from a song, as exemplified by one example (Britney Spears’ “ . . . Baby One More Time”). The
graph is the sonogram, the red bars indicate the sampling window. Horizontal black bars represent clip durations.

To summarize, we created 12 clips for each of the 260
songs. For standard songs, we picked clips from a cho-
rus, verse, intro, or outro section, as well as a subjectively
chosen section, with a duration of 15s, 10s, and 5s for
each. For songs with a non-standard structure, we
picked clips from sections in the song that statistically
corresponded to the typical starting points of chorus,
verse, and intro/outro of standard songs.
Auditory ‘‘Palate Cleanser’’
As each participant listened to numerous songs and
clips (a total of 192) throughout the experiment, we
created simple behavioral tasks that the participants
completed between each music presentation to avoid
carryover effects from one music selection to the next.
This ‘‘palate cleansing’’ was effective. We performed an
analysis correlating the music ratings from all 192 trials
with themselves, offset by one trial. This cross-correla-
tion analysis revealed that this correlation between all
ratings and those offset by one trial was statistically
indistinguishable from zero for almost all (94%) of the
participants. It was only significant for the rest of the
participants, and those effects were likely driven either
by mood effects (someone being in a temporary up- or
down-state), or someone ‘‘clicking through’’ for a while,
during the task.
Procedure
Throughout the experiment, participants listened to
music (full songs and clips), which they rated in terms
of liking and familiarity. They also were asked to indi-
cate whether they recognized each music selection. Each
music presentation was followed by a ‘‘palate cleanser,’’
a task requiring a behavioral response that was designed
to distract participants from what they had just heard.
All music was presented via Audio-Technica ATH-
M20x Professional Monitor Headphones using cus-
tom-built MATLAB (2016b) software.
The songs used in each session were randomly drawn
from all 260 songs, with the following constraints: each
participant listened to 6 songs from the Billboard, 3
from the Rentfrow corpus, and 3 ‘‘iconic’’ songs, for
a total of 12 songs per participant and experimental
session. Participants were also presented with the 144
clips (12 per each song) drawn from these 12 songs as
well as 36 clips that were randomly drawn from the
other 248 songs in order to enrich the experience of
participants, as piloting suggested that listening to only
12 songs over and over again would be too monotonous.
The order of these 192 music selections was effectively
randomized (we constrained the order of the music
Brief Clips are Reliable Estimators of Whole Songs 223
selections such that a clip from a song cannot immedi-
ately precede or follow the song from which it came)
and alternated with 191 behavioral ‘‘palate cleansers’’ for
a total of 383 trials per participant.
To operationalize affective (preference) and cognitive
(familiarity/recognition) judgments respectively, parti-
cipants were asked in each music trial to rate how much
they like the current song or clip on a 7-point Likert
scale (‘‘Hate it,’’ ‘‘Strongly dislike it,’’ ’’Slightly dislike it,’’
‘‘Indifferent,’’ ‘‘Slightly like it,’’ ‘‘Strongly like it,’’ ‘‘Love
it’’) as well as rate their familiarity on a 5-point Likert
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023
scale, responding to the question, ‘‘How often have you
heard this before?’’ (‘‘Never,’’ ‘‘Once,’’ ‘‘More than once,’’
‘‘Multiple times,’’ ‘‘Too many to count’’). We used these
scales because piloting indicated that these response
options constitute ‘‘natural’’ reference points. Partici-
pants were also asked to indicate whether they recog-
nized the song by binary choice (‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No’’).
Importantly, our participants only see the qualitative
labels, to which we assign numbers from 1 to 7 (for
ratings) and 1 to 5 (for familiarity) in the analysis.
When instructing the participants, we emphasized
that they should answer all questions pertaining to the
specific clip or song they just heard, not other portions
of the song, or whole genres. All procedures were
approved by the New York University Institutional
Review Board, the University Committee on Activities
Involving Human Subjects (UCAIHS).
Data Analysis
To analyze the data, we use MATLAB throughout. As
we performed several statistical comparisons in the
form of significance tests, we adopted a conservative
significance level alpha of .005 (Benjamin et al., 2018),
in order to avoid false positive results.
Before performing these tests, we needed to do
a manipulation check to establish whether our partici-
pants used the scale described above properly. For
instance, it was conceivable that there were floor effects,
ceiling effects, response biases, as well as the possibility
that we used songs that were psychometrically not rep-
resentative of the full range of music.
To accomplish this, we plotted a histogram of the
number of responses as a function of the average pref-
erence rating for both clips and songs. If there were
substantial deviations from normal, this could pose
statistical issues as well as raise the question of whether
our participants were engaged in the task or had other
biases.
However, our results showed that the overall prefer-
ence ratings of our chosen music were well-calibrated
224 Sara J. Philibotte, Stephen Spivack, Nathaniel H. Spilka, Ian Passman, & Pascal Wallisch
FIGURE 2. Ratings distributions. Each histogram represents the average preference ratings per participant, binned. Left panel: Clips. Right
panel: Songs.
and that participants used the rating scale properly (see
Figure 2). The mean song preference rating was 4.23,
with a standard deviation of 0.95, while the mean clip
preference rating was 4.13, with a standard deviation of
0.87. Both distributions did not significantly deviate
from a normal distribution, as tested by a Shapiro-Wilk
test: SW = 0.9991, p = .99 for clips, and SW = 0.9958,
p = .082 for songs. Thus, our preference ratings distri-
butions are not statistically distinguishable from normal
distributions.
Results
The main question we attempt to answer in this study
was whether preference and familiarity ratings in
response to brief music excerpts were representative of
the whole songs from which they were sampled.
To address this question, we correlated the average
clip preference rating of participants with their song
preference rating. The median Spearman rank correla-
tion was .834 (see Figure 3 for the distribution).
As only 12 points went into any given correlation (per
participant), we were concerned whether such a median
could likely be obtained by chance. Thus, we randomly
shuffled the ratings data 500,000 times. Doing so, the
highest median correlation we obtained was .0724,
implying an exact p value of 0. We therefore concluded
that this median correlation was both statistically
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023
significant and substantial. Put differently, clip prefer-
ence ratings did seem to predict song preference
ratings well.
However, there was an unaddressed confound in this
analysis. We simply correlated the song preference rat-
ings with the clip preference ratings, regardless of where
in the presentation sequence the song appeared. In
other words, what might appear as prediction—predict-
ing the song preference rating from the clip preference
rating—might in actuality be post-diction. This was not
a trivial point, as the task (from the perspective of the
participant) was quite different psychologically. In the
first case, there were large parts of the song that they
had not heard yet, if they just heard a brief excerpt. In
the second case, they simply had to realize that the clip
was part of a song they already heard. Thus, we further
refined this analysis by whether the clips occurred
before or after the song (see Figure 4).
Our intuition as to the different nature of the
responses appeared to be correct. The median Spear-
man correlation for clips presented after the song was
significantly higher than that between clips presented
before the song, as assessed by a KS-test (D = 0.091,
D = 0.279, p = 2.68e-22).
Taken together, the correlation between clip and song
ratings was high, indicative of high intra-song reliability
of appraisal. But did this depend on the length of the
clip? Intuitively, it must—from first principles, the

FIGURE 3. Distribution of Spearman rank correlations between clip and song preference ratings. Grey bars: Binned correlations. Orange vertical line:
Median correlation.
longer an organism integrates information, the more
reliable a judgment will be (Anderson, 1962). However,
it is possible that humans are highly efficient integrators
of this information. In other words, accuracy of judg-
ments might have already saturated at the beginning of
the range of excerpt durations commonly used in music
psychology research (around 5 s). We explore this ques-
tion in Figure 5.
Median Spearman correlations between the clip and
song preference ratings were .74, .76, and .78 for clips of
5s, 10s, and 15s duration, respectively, if the clip was
presented before the song. Median Spearman correla-
tions between the clip and song preference ratings were
.84, .86, and .86 for clips of 5s, 10s, and 15s duration,
respectively, if the clip was presented after the song.
We perform KS-tests to assess whether these differ-
ences are statistically significant (see Table 1).
To summarize this pattern of results, all differences
between clip durations—whether they be before or after
the song—were not significant. In contrast, all differ-
ences between clips presented before and after the song
(for a given clip duration) were statistically significant.
We concluded that clip duration was not a significant
factor when predicting song preference rating from clip
Brief Clips are Reliable Estimators of Whole Songs 225
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023
preference rating. However, just like in the analysis
where we did not disaggregate by duration, clip ratings
from clips presented after the song were more strongly
correlated with the song preference ratings.
Whereas it appears that there was no significant dif-
ference between clip durations that are commonly used
in music, one might wonder if it matters from which
part of the song the clip is sampled. For instance, it is
conceivable that there could be a considerable difference
in the correlation between clips and song for clips taken
from the chorus versus clips taken from other sections
of the song. We explored this question in Figure 6.
Median Spearman correlations between the clip and
song preference ratings were .72, .76, .75, and .76 for
clips from Intro/Outro, Chorus, Verse, and a subjectively
maximally representative portion of the song, respec-
tively, if the clip was presented before the song. Median
Spearman correlations between the clip and song pref-
erence ratings were .83, .85, .84, and .85 for clips from
Intro/Outro, Chorus, Verse, and a subjectively maxi-
mally representative portion of the song, respectively,
if the clip was presented after the song. We performed
KS-tests to assess whether these differences are statisti-
cally significant and present the results in Table 2.
226 Sara J. Philibotte, Stephen Spivack, Nathaniel H. Spilka, Ian Passman, & Pascal Wallisch

Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023

FIGURE 4. Distribution of Spearman rank correlations between clip and song preference ratings. Grey bars: Binned correlations. Orange vertical lines:
Median correlation. Top panel: Preference ratings from clips presented before the song. Bottom panel: Preference ratings from clips presented after
the song.

Again, a consistent pattern of results emerges.
Broadly speaking, it did not matter from which section
in the song the clips were sampled from. The only
exception to this was the comparison between clips
from the Intro or Outro compared to subjectively most
representative clips, with the latter being slightly stron-
ger correlated with the song preference ratings. This is
plausible, as the Intro or Outro can be quite drastically
different from the rest of the song, in terms of acoustic
properties.
Again, there were strong and statistically significant
differences for clips presented before vs. after the song,
with clips presented after the song being consistently
more correlated with the song preference ratings,
regardless of the song section from which the clip came.
Consistent with the idea that when participants
encountered a particular song, any subsequent clip can
then serve as a cue to evoke the memory of the feelings
that the whole song elicits, it is also possible that parti-
cipants have encountered the whole song before the
study. In that case, a clip could act as a retrieval cue
to the memory of the whole song, whenever that was
heard (Spivack et al., 2019). In other words, the effects
laid out above might well be mediated by recognition. In
fact, it is possible that what drives preference ratings are
not acoustic properties of the song per se, but the entire
context and associations that were encoded when first
encountering the song prior to the experiment. If this
were the case, we would predict that such an effect
would boost the correlation between clips and song
preference ratings, as these memories could be used to
rate the clip, consistent with the previously encountered
song. Thus, this correlation should be higher for clips
where participants recognize the song compared to
those where they do not.
There are indications that are consistent with this
model. For instance, we recorded the time it took for
participants to click on the ‘‘next trial’’ button. Looking
at the reaction times for 5s clips is fair, as participants
could already report their preference ratings while the
clip is still playing, but not continue to the next trial
until the clip had finished playing. Looking at the reac-
tion times for these clips, the median reaction time for
unrecognized clips is 7.16s, whereas it is 6.76s for rec-
ognized clips. This difference was statistically signifi-
cant, as evaluated with a Mann-Whitney U test
(ranksum = 360980, p = 9.38e-7). Thus, it took longer
to rate an unrecognized song than a recognized one,
 Brief Clips are Reliable Estimators of Whole Songs 227

Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023

FIGURE 5. Distribution of Spearman rank correlations between clip and song preference ratings by clip duration. Grey bars: Binned correlations.
Orange vertical lines: Median correlation. Top row: Preference ratings from clips presented before the song. Bottom row: Preference ratings from clips
presented after the song. Columns from left to right: 5-second, 10-second, and 15-second clips, respectively.

TABLE 1. KS-test Results Corresponding to Data Presented in As one can see, song recognition can be predicted
Figure 5 from the number of clips that are recognized and is well
Comparison of clip described by a logistic function (ß0 = 4.12, ß1 = 0.64).
durations relative However, this analysis integrated information over all
to song Delta D p Significant? participants and clips and was challenging to do on
5s Before vs. 10s Before 0.011 0.062 .171 ns a per-participant level, as recognition rates for quite
5s Before vs. 15s Before 0.034 0.088 .0143 ns a few of our songs were close to zero. This is not sur-
10s Before vs. 15s 0.023 0.061 .176 ns prising, given that we took a substantial portion of our
Before sample from the Rentfrow et al. (2011) corpus, which
5s After vs. 10s After 0.014 0.050 .409 ns
5s After vs. 15s After 0.014 0.050 .389 ns
was deliberately sampled to consist of obscure music.
10s After vs. 15s After 5.5e-6 0.039 .720 ns Overall, only 20% of the clips were reported to be rec-
5s Before vs. 5s After 0.099 0.22 5.60e-14 *** ognized by our participants. Therefore, instead of cal-
10s Before vs. 10s After 0.101 0.26 1.82e-19 *** culating the average clip-to-song correlation, we
15s Before vs. 15s After 0.079 0.23 1.03e-14 *** calculated the mean absolute deviation in this analysis
(see Figure 8).
perhaps due to the fact that the memory serves as short- We attempted to tease apart the effects of recogni-
cut, which is remarkable, as it takes some time to click tion and whether clips were presented before or after
the ‘‘I recognize the clip’’ checkbox whereas it takes no the song. The mean absolute deviation (MAD) was
time to simply leave it unclicked (the default). Thus, calculated as the mean absolute difference between
everything else being equal, we would expect the unrec- song and clip ratings. As one can see, the MAD was
ognized clip trials to be completed faster. lowest for recognized clips presented after the song.
Moreover, there is information in the clip recognition The prediction accuracy of clips presented before the
data (see Figure 7). song but that were recognized was roughly equal to
228 Sara J. Philibotte, Stephen Spivack, Nathaniel H. Spilka, Ian Passman, & Pascal Wallisch

Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023

FIGURE 6. Distribution of Spearman rank correlations between clip and song preference ratings by song section. Grey bars: Binned correlations.
Orange vertical lines: Median correlation. Top row: Preference ratings from clips presented before the song. Bottom row: Preference ratings from clips
presented after the song. Columns from left to right: Clips sampled from the Intro or Outro, Chorus, Verse or a subjectively most representative section
of the song, respectively.

TABLE 2. KS-test Results Corresponding to Data Presented in Figure 6

Comparison of clip durations relative to song Delta D p Significant?

I/O before vs. Chorus before 0.0363 0.0754 .0510 ns
I/O before vs. Verse before 0.0302 0.0628 .1565 ns
I/O before vs. Representative before 0.0432 0.1120 6.06e-04 *
Chorus before vs. Verse before 0.0060 0.0440 .5605 ns
Chorus before vs. Representative before 0.0069 0.0508 .3755 ns
Verse before vs. Representative before 0.0130 0.0838 .0216 ns
I/O after vs. Chorus after 0.0225 0.0750 .0530 ns
I/O after vs. Verse after 0.0160 0.0539 .3041 ns
I/O after vs. Representative after 0.0283 0.0982 .0039 *
Chorus after vs. Verse after 0.0065 0.0485 .4346 ns
Chorus after vs. Representative after 0.0058 0.0469 .4779 ns
Verse after vs. Representative after 0.0124 0.0627 .1571 ns
I/O before vs. I/O after 0.1055 0.2229 2.28e-14 ***
Chorus before vs. Chorus after 0.0917 0.2137 3.19e-13 ***
Verse before vs. Verse after 0.0912 0.2253 1.12e-14 ***
Representative before vs. Representative after 0.0906 0.2023 6.66e-12 ***

that of unrecognized clips presented after the song.
Unrecognized clips that were presented before the
song were least predictive of the song preference
rating, but still far more predictive than one would
expect from random chance. We concluded that both
recognition and presentation order seem to play
about equally strong roles in increasing song predict-
ability from clips, with short-term and long-term
memory serving as plausible mechanisms underlying
this effect.
 Brief Clips are Reliable Estimators of Whole Songs 229

Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023

FIGURE 7. Logistic regression of song recognition from clip recognition. The x-axis represents the number of clips recognized. The y-axis represents
whether the song was recognized. Black dots represent individual songs across all participants. The orange line is the logistic fit.

FIGURE 8. Bar graph of mean absolute deviations as a function of whether clips were presented before or after the song, and whether they were
recognized or not. Orange error bars represent the standard error of the mean. For comparison, we also included a bar that corresponds to randomly
shuffled ratings.
230 Sara J. Philibotte, Stephen Spivack, Nathaniel H. Spilka, Ian Passman, & Pascal Wallisch

It is somewhat surprising that neither the duration of
the excerpt (within a three-fold duration window of
commonly used excerpt durations from 5 to 15 seconds)
nor the song section that the excerpt came from appre-
ciably affected the predictability of song preference rat-
ings from the preference rating of excerpts (with the
exception of the contrast between intro/outro and rep-
resentative ratings). With this in mind, note that we
presented the excerpts in random order throughout the
experiment. Given this design, it is possible that there
was cross-contamination between the excerpts; for
a function of duration and song section. As we can only
use the very first instance of the excerpts, we computed
the root mean-squared error (RMSE) across all partici-
pants and songs and then bootstrap confidence inter-
vals. To mimic the significance level used in the rest of
this publication and to guard against multiple compar-
ison concerns, we computed 99% confidence intervals.
As is evident in Figure 9, the concerns about cross-
contamination between excerpts were not borne out
empirically, as these results closely mirror those from
previous analyses presented above.

Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023

instance, if a longer excerpt was played first, that might
affect how a later, but shorter one was interpreted. It is
also possible that if a more representative segment was
played first, the intro would remind the listener of that,
which would artificially level the difference in predict-
ability. This is a valid concern, and one of the key rea-
sons Belfi et al. (2018) adopted a block design. However,
such a design is also not without inherent concerns,
such as order effects or temporal autocorrelations. Thus,
we addressed this possibility by analyzing the predict-
ability of song ratings based on the very first excerpt
(and only if that excerpt was played before the song), as
After answering the question of whether preference
ratings of songs can be predicted from clip preference
ratings, we turned to the question of whether song
familiarity could be predicted from clip familiarity. To
answer this question, we employed a similar but some-
what modified analysis, as each presentation of music—
both clips and songs—changed the reported familiarity
of subsequent music presentations of the same kind (see
Figure 10).
Figure 10 shows two things: First, familiarity signifi-
cantly increased as a function of the number of presen-
tations of the same music. Second, the type of music

FIGURE 9. Predictability of song preference ratings from excerpt preference ratings based on the very first pre-song excerpt only. Upper panel: The x-
axis denotes the duration of the excerpts. The y-axis indicates the root mean squared error (RMSE) between excerpt and song preference ratings. The
orange error bars represent the bootstrapped 99% confidence interval. Lower panel: Like the upper panel, but the x-axis now denotes the section of
the song the excerpt was extracted from.

FIGURE 10. Familiarity as a function of presentation number. x-axis: Presentation. y-axis: Mean familiarity. Red error bars represent the standard
error of the mean. Left panel: Treating all music presentations——be they clips or songs——equally. Right panel: Ordering clip presentations relative to the
song presentation, 0 = song.
mattered; in other words, listening to the song had
a much larger impact on the reported familiarity than
a clip. This is plausible, as the average song was 21 times
longer than the average clip. As both observations
impact any possible relationship between clips and
songs, we restricted our analysis to clips that were
immediately preceding a song. We believe this was a
fair comparison, as their average familiarity was
comparable.
Thus, to answer the question of whether song famil-
iarity can be predicted from clip familiarity, we calcu-
lated the median Spearman correlation between songs
and the corresponding clips that immediately preceded
them as .771 (see Figure 11 for the distribution).
Following the logic of the preference ratings analysis,
we considered whether there was a difference in median
correlation as a function of clip duration. However, as
discussed above, only the immediately preceding clip
was valid as a predictor of song familiarity. This meant
that each correlation was only based on a few points,
which made correlations of 1, 0 and -1 much more
likely, as evident in Figure 12. Thus, we paired the cor-
relation figures with corresponding mean absolute devi-
ation numbers and distributions.
Consistent with the findings from the preference rat-
ings, the relationship between clip and song familiarity
was strong, but there was no significant difference
between different clip durations (see Table 3).
Brief Clips are Reliable Estimators of Whole Songs 231
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023
To conclude our analysis, we also considered the rela-
tionship between clip and song familiarity as a function
of song section from which the clip was sampled. We
show these distributions in Figure 13. As the same con-
siderations regarding correlation apply, we also present
the mean absolute deviation (MAD).
Like the duration findings, these results are consistent
with the corresponding results from the preference rat-
ings; see Table 3 for the results of the hypothesis tests.
Discussion
In this study, we explored whether the psychological
responses to excerpts were representative of the songs
from which they were sampled. We found that this was
the case, broadly speaking: Both the preference and
familiarity ratings of a song could be well predicted
from excerpt preference and familiarity ratings. This
pattern of results is remarkably consistent. Both song
preference and familiarity ratings are well predicted
from clips, regardless of their duration, and regardless
of which section in the song they were sampled from,
with the exception of a significant difference between
songs from the Intro or Outro vs. those from the sub-
jectively most representative part of the song.
One strength of this research is that it was conducted
with high statistical power, as we used about an order of
magnitude more participants in this study than most
232 Sara J. Philibotte, Stephen Spivack, Nathaniel H. Spilka, Ian Passman, & Pascal Wallisch

Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023

FIGURE 11. Distribution of Spearman rank correlations between clip and song familiarity. Grey bars: Binned correlations. Orange vertical line: Median
correlation.

FIGURE 12. Distribution of Spearman rank correlations and mean absolute deviations between clip and song ratings by clip duration. Grey bars:
Binned correlations. Orange vertical lines: Median correlation. Top row: Spearman correlations. Bottom row: Mean absolute deviation.
 Brief Clips are Reliable Estimators of Whole Songs 233

Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023

FIGURE 13. Distribution of Spearman rank correlations and mean absolute deviations between clip and song familiarity ratings by song section the
clip was sampled from. Grey bars: Binned correlations. Orange vertical lines: Median correlation. Top row: Spearman correlations. Bottom row: Mean
absolute deviation.

TABLE 3. KS-test Results Corresponding to Data Presented in problems (Buchanan & Scofield, 2017). In the age of
Figures 11 and 12 questionable replicability, power is a considerable con-
cern (Open Science Collaboration, 2015; Wallisch,
Comparison of
MAD (clip vs. 2015).
song familiarity) Delta D p Significant? A limitation of this work is that we were unable to
determine the concordance between clip and song rat-
5s vs. 10 s 0.0266 0.0544 .3085 ns ings as a function of clip duration, as the agreement was
5s vs. 15s 0.0236 0.0425 .6207 ns
10s vs. 15s 0.0031 0.0246 .9898 ns already high at the shortest duration we used (5 sec-
Intro/Outro vs. 0.1097 0.1022 .0032 * onds). This is perhaps not surprising given research
Chorus on ‘‘thin slices’’ in music perception: participants are
Intro/Outro vs. 0.0988 0.0891 .0169 ns able to recognize snippets of songs that are as short as
Verse 300 ms with a 25% success rate (Krumhansl, 2010). In
Intro/Outro vs. 0.1270 0.1287 8.586e-5 **
Representative general, the temporal fidelity of the human auditory
Chorus vs. Verse 0.0109 0.0283 .9645 ns system is exquisite; people are able to distinguish the
Chorus vs. 0.0173 0.0728 .0727 ns human voice from other sources with exposure dura-
Representative tions as short as 2 ms (Suied et al., 2013).
Verse vs. 0.0282 0.0676 .1228 ns Thus, the shortest duration at which song rating and
Representative
recognition can be perfectly predicted from clip
responses will lie somewhere below 5 seconds, perhaps
existing experimental studies on music perception and considerably so. However, the question of which clip
cognition. The only exceptions are music studies that duration predictions about song judgments dip from
rely on survey research or participants on Amazon perfect (given the limits of reliability imposed by judg-
mTurk, which come with their own host of inherent ments about the song ratings) is perhaps mostly of
234 Sara J. Philibotte, Stephen Spivack, Nathaniel H. Spilka, Ian Passman, & Pascal Wallisch
academic interest. An exposure duration of 5 seconds
already allows the experimenter to rapidly present
excerpts from many songs and it might take participants
a while to make judgments about what they are hearing.
For instance, presenting a rapid stream of clips with
a duration of 1 second might still yield reliable judg-
ments about the songs, but might be too exhausting for
participants if this stream is too long. Nevertheless,
determining the exact slope of this ‘‘rise of the temporal
kernel’’ could be of interest and thus constitute an area
of future research.
Another potential limitation of this research consists
in the fact that we used a fully randomized design when
determining the order of clips and songs. Such an
approach has many advantages, as it eliminates con-
cerns regarding temporal autocorrelations and secular
response biases. However, one downside of such a design
is that if a shorter clip is presented after a longer one,
participants could conceivable remember—and
respond—to what they heard before, not the currently
presented short clip. If this effect is strong, it might limit
the interpretability of the conclusion that duration did
not matter. Similar concerns apply to the conclusion
that the song section of origin of an excerpt did not
matter. However, this would require prodigious feats
of memory on part of the participants to keep track of
all of this information across presentations from differ-
ent song sections throughout the study. Indeed, our
analysis presented in Figure 9 shows that this concern
is unfounded empirically; even if one only considers
first exposures of song excerpts, where no such contam-
ination between excerpts is possible, we find the same
results as in the other analyses.
To summarize, we believe this research has implica-
tions for the study of music perception and cognition as
a whole. First, this research shows that excerpts that are
as short as 5 seconds are already sufficiently represen-
tative in terms of preference and familiarity ratings of
the song as a whole. This means that studies on the
psychology of music can potentially present many more
stimuli than used in previous work without compromis-
ing how well a song is represented by the clip. Second,
there are also theoretical implications for the psychol-
ogy of music. For instance, the sonic properties of a song
are presumably somewhat different between the chorus,
the verse, and the intro. Remarkably, this does not seem
to matter much. Judgments about how well someone
likes a given song seem to be largely independent of the
location in the song from which it was sampled.
Of course, simply recognizing the song could be
enough to determine how much one likes it. This is
plausible, given that the accurate recognition of genre
is very fast (Gjerdingen & Perrott, 2008; Mace et al.,
2012), and people presumably know how much they
like a given genre. Our results suggest that while song
recognition did play a role, it did not account for all of
the effects we observed. However, one caveat is that we
might not have achieved a fair apples-to-apples com-
parison, as so many clips were unrecognized. As this
study was not designed to address this question specif-
ically, we recommend doing so in future research, with
a more balanced sample of music in terms of popular
recognition.
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023
The strong correlation between clip and song prefer-
ence ratings, independent of where in the song the clip
was sampled and independent of duration, raises the
question of what actually determines one’s preference
of a given song. What exactly underlies this—perhaps
invariant sonic properties that are present throughout
the entire song or judgments of genres as a whole—
should be explored in future research. It also addresses
one of the central questions of Gestalt psychology,
namely whether ‘‘the sum is other than the sum of its
parts’’ (Koffka, 1935). At least in terms of some psycho-
logical qualities of popular music as measured by pref-
erence and familiarity ratings, that does not seem to be
the case, as responses to the parts seem, overall, to be
a good proxy for responses to the whole. Indeed, this
research suggests that popular music is close to auditory
textures (Ellis et al., 2011; McDermott & Simoncelli,
2011), contrasting with popular movies, which are nar-
rative- and plot-development driven (Wallisch &
Whritner, 2017).
Finally, this research could have practical implica-
tions. Music industry platforms like iTunes, Amazon,
and Pandora already provide prospective buyers with
a 30-second excerpt of the song, presumably chosen
by expert judgment. Instead, these samples could simply
include a 5-second clip that was randomly picked from
a song segment other than the Intro or Outro.
Author Note
We would like to thank Lucy Cranmer, Warren Ersly,
and Ted Coons for helpful comments on a prior version
of this manuscript. We would also like to thank the
Dean’s Undergraduate Research Fund (DURF) at New
York University for financial support of this project and
Andy Hilford for providing the space for our lab to run
participants.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Pascal Wallisch, New York University, 60
Fifth Avenue, Room 210, New York, NY, 10011. E-mail:
pascal.wallisch@nyu.edu

References
A LLAIN (2014). Why are songs on the radio about the same
length? Wired. https://www.wired.com/2014/07/why-are-
songs-on-the-radio-about-the-same-length/
A NDERSON , N. H. (1962). Application of an additive model to
impression formation. Science, 138(3542), 817–818.
B ARRETT, F. S., G RIMM , K. J., R OBINS , R. W., W ILDSCHUT, T.,
S EDIKIDES , C., & J ANATA , P. (2010). Music-evoked nostalgia:
Affect, memory, and personality. Emotion, 10(3), 390.
B ELFI , A. M., K ARLAN , B., & T RANEL , D. (2016). Music evokes
vivid autobiographical memories. Memory, 24(7), 979–989.
B ELFI , A. M., K ASDAN , A., R OWLAND, J., V ESSEL , E. A., S TARR ,
G. G., & P OEPPEL , D. (2018). Rapid timing of music
aesthetic judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 147(10), 1531–1543. https://doi.org/10.1037/
xge0000474
B ENJAMIN , D. J., B ERGER , J. O., J OHANNESSON , M., N OSEK , B. A.,
WAGENMAKERS , E. J., B ERK , R., ET AL . (2018). Redefine sta-
tistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 6.
B UCHANAN , E. M., & S COFIELD, J. E. (2018, February 18).
Methods to detect low quality data and its implication for
psychological research. Center for Open Science. Retrieved
from osf.io/cv2bn https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-
1035-6
C AMERER , C. F., D REBER , A., H OLZMEISTER , F., H O, T. H.,
H UBER , J., J OHANNESSON , M., ET AL . (2018). Evaluating
the replicability of social science experiments in Nature
and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human
Behaviour, 1.
D E V RIES , B. (1991). Assessment of the affective response to
music with Clynes’s sentograph. Psychology of Music, 19(1),
46–64.
E LLIS , D. P., Z ENG , X., & M C D ERMOTT, J. H. (2011, May).
Classifying soundtracks with audio texture features. In
Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (pp.
5880–5883). IEEE International Conference.
G JERDINGEN , R. O., & P ERROTT, D. (2008). Scanning the dial:
The rapid recognition of music genres. Journal of New Music
Research, 37(2), 93–100.
G REWE , O., KOPIEZ , R., & A LTENMÜÜLLER , E. (2009). The chill
parameter: Goose bumps and shivers as promising measures in
emotion research. Music Perception, 27(1), 61–74.
G REWE , O., NAGEL , F., KOPIEZ , R., & A LTENMÜLLER , E. (2007).
Listening to music as a re-creative process: Physiological,
psychological, and psychoacoustical correlates of chills and
strong emotions. Music Perception, 24(3), 297–314.
KOFFKA , K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology (Vol. 44).
Routledge.
Brief Clips are Reliable Estimators of Whole Songs 235
K REUTZ , G., O TT, U., T EICHMANN , D., O SAWA , P., & VAITL , D.
(2008). Using music to induce emotions: Influences of music
preference and absorption. Psychology of Music, 36(1),
101–126.
K RUMHANSL , C. L. (1997). An exploratory study of music emo-
tions and psychophysiology. Canadian Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 51(4), 336–353.
K RUMHANSL , C. L. (2010). Plink:" Thin slices" of music. Music
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023
Perception, 27(5), 337–354.
K RUMHANSL , C. L. (2017). Listening niches across a century of
popular music. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 431.
K RUMHANSL , C. L., & Z UPNICK , J. A. (2013). Cascading ’’remi-
niscence bumps’’ in popular music. Psychological Science,
24(10), 2057–2068.
LUNDIN , R. W. (1953). An objective psychology of music. Ronald
Press.
M ACE , S. T., WAGONER , C. L., T EACHOUT, D. J., & H ODGES , D.
A. (2012). Genre identification of very brief music excerpts.
Psychology of Music, 40(1), 112–128.
M C C OWN , W., K EISER , R., M ULHEARN , S., & W ILLIAMSON , D.
(1997). The role of personality and gender in preference for
exaggerated bass in music. Personality and Individual
Differences, 23(4), 543–547.
M C D ERMOTT, J. H., & S IMONCELLI , E. P. (2011). Sound texture
perception via statistics of the auditory periphery: Evidence
from sound synthesis. Neuron, 71(5), 926–940.
M EHR , S. A., S INGH , M., YORK , H., G LOWACKI , L., & K RASNOW,
M. M. (2018). Form and function in human song. Current
Biology, 28(3), 356–368.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.12.042
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproduc-
ibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.
P ERETZ , I., G AUDREAU, D., & B ONNEL , A. M. (1998). Exposure
effects on music preference and recognition. Memory and
Cognition, 26(5), 884–902.
P RINCE , J. B. (2011). The integration of stimulus dimensions in
the perception of music. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 64(11), 2125–2152.
R ENTFROW, P. J., G OLDBERG , L. R., & L EVITIN , D. J. (2011). The
structure of music preferences: A five-factor model. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1139–1157.
S CHÄFER , T., & S EDLMEIER , P. (2010). What makes us like music?
Determinants of music preference. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 4(4), 223–234.
S PIVACK , S., P HILIBOTTE , S. J., S PILKA , N. H., PASSMAN , I., &
WALLISCH , P. (2018). How fleeting is fame? Collective memory
for popular music. Preprint from PsyArXiv. DOI: 10.31234/
osf.io/tdfyc
236 Sara J. Philibotte, Stephen Spivack, Nathaniel H. Spilka, Ian Passman, & Pascal Wallisch
S UIED, C., A GUS , T. R., T HORPE , S. J., & P RESSNITZER , D. (2013).
Processing of short auditory stimuli: The rapid audio sequen-
tial presentation paradigm (RASP). In B. C. J. Moore (Ed.),
Basic aspects of hearing (pp. 443–451). Springer.
V UOSKOSKI , J. K., T HOMPSON , W. F., M C I LWAIN , D., & E EROLA ,
T. (2012). Who enjoys listening to sad music and why? Music
Perception, 29(3), 311–317.
WALLISCH , P. (2015). Brighter than the sun: Powerscape visuali-
zations illustrate power needs in neuroscience and psychology.
Preprint from arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1512.09368
WALLISCH , P., & W HRITNER , J. A. (2017). Strikingly low agree-
ment in the appraisal of motion pictures. Projections, 11(1),
102–120.
WARRENBURG , L. A. (2020). Choosing the right tune: A review of
music stimuli used in emotion research. Music perception,
37(3), 240-258.
Z ENTNER , M., G RANDJEAN , D., & S CHERER , K. R. (2008).
Emotions evoked by the sound of music: characterization,
classification, and measurement. Emotion, 8(4), 494.
Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article-pdf/40/3/220/769560/mp.2023.40.3.220.pdf by guest on 13 August 2023