The abovefindings can be explained in terms of a bidirectional action-perception coupling. In one direction, incoming sensory information is transformed into corresponding motor repre-sentations on the basis of a direct-matching or mirroring (Rizzolatti, Fogassi, and Gallese, 2001).
It explains why so many people tend to move along with the expressive patterns they hear in music. In the other direction, sensory outcomes are predicted based on planned or executed actions (Waszak, Cardoso-Leite, and Hughes, 2012). This explains why the perception of ambiguous musical patterns can be influenced by movements, as movements prompt people to impose– at least temporarily – certain anticipated structures (e.g. rhythm, melody, dynamics, phrasing, etc.) or affective qualities onto the music. The two directions are coupled in the sense that the mere activation of one representation (i.e. action or perception) results in the activation of the other. This provides a model that can explain, at least partly, how decoding and prediction of expressiveness and of structural features (e.g. pitch, rhythm, etc.) in music works, namely by association with expressive gestures. Accordingly, it provides a model for our understanding of
how music perception relates to goal-directed actions, namely by linking perceived patterns to actions that are associated with predicted outcomes and intended goals. Some further refinements of this theory are possible (Maes et al., 2014). A first refinement relates to the nature of the representations. According to the common-coding theory (Prinz, 1997) the planning or executing of an action and the perception of the sensory outcome of this action lead to similar activation patterns in the brain involving sensory and motor-cortical areas. Important in this theory is that the integration of motor, sensory and introspective representations lead to internal models of the relationship between the body, the mind and the external environment. Also, in this theory, it is important to address how action-perception couplings can be developed through associative learning processes (Lalazar and Vaadia, 2008; Heyes, 2010; Cooper et al., 2012).
Through the repeated physical experience of specific actions in relation to specific sounds and introspective states, excitatory links are established between the involved motor, sensory and introspective representations in the brain. As these links have been shown to be important for the perception of music, it is important to better understand the processes underlying their formation.
Rightfully, one could argue that the repeated experience of co-occurring sound patterns, actions and introspection lead to internal models that further regulate people’s engagement with, and perception of, music. However, the statistics of co-occurrences do not explain why specific – and not just random– associations entered into the repertoire. The specification of co-occurrences is, at least partly, rooted into (i) the physical principles governing the transfer of energy of human motion into sound energy, (ii) cultural predispositions about the relationship between sound, action and introspection, and (iii) biological principles connecting specific acoustical character-istics of music to emotional responses (cf. brainstem reflexes; Juslin and Västfjäll, 2008). This interweaving of physical, cultural and biological predispositions, and as a consequence of learned and innate processes, must be taken into account to provide better insights into the human psychology of music. Another refinement that could be made concerns a distinction between action-perception loops and sensorimotor loops. The idea is that action-perception loops tap into a container of general expressive gestures whereas the sensorimotor loop allows the refinement of execution of the general expressive gestures in response to the environment. For example, while listening, the choreography of a dance pattern can be planned, but the fine details (e.g. hand movements) may be driven by a direct response to environmental circumstances.
Conclusion
The embodied music cognition paradigm changes our understanding of music perception in the sense that we consider music perception from the viewpoint of interaction rather than from the viewpoint of perception without action (Leman, 2008). There is now ample evidence that music perception is tightly integrated with other modalities such as sensing, moving, planning, and with the environment. Compared to the (disembodied) cognitive approach, prediction remains an essential aspect of what has to be explained and understood about music perception. However, the focus is less on representations of structure and more on representations of interactions that allow structures to be exploited in an expressive, empathic and gestural way. Consequently, the idea that the brain works as an auditory sponge in relation to music can no longer be maintained.
Other modalities, not least the modalities that act in the environment, influence the sponge.
Hence it is better to use the metaphor of a system whose representations are focused on inter-action patterns that allow the effective prediction of multimodal pattern exchanges with the environment using internal sensing (proprioception, interoception). It is likely that this ability to predict is developed as a result of associative learning processes that connect sensory, motor and introspective states into an integrated network. The important point here is that (i) music
Music perception and embodied music cognition
perception cannot be disconnected from the environment and the brain, that (ii) music per-ception forms part of an interactive (action-perper-ception) system that is multimodal, and that (iii) the mechanisms behind music perception are the same for music performance (although the latter aspect falls outside the scope of the present chapter).
The challenge is to consider music perception as part of a larger framework that can be helpful in understanding the effects of musical power on our general well-being. When speak-ing about mood regulation or the motivation to move, we already imply the involvement of the emotional and motor systems and consider the possibility that music perception (including its power to anticipate and affect our experience) is multimodal, involving auditory, motor and emotional systems. In recent years, there is a growing awareness of the fact that the embodied viewpoint on music perception has an explanatory capacity that ranges beyond what (disembodied) cognitive approaches could achieve.
References
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–45.
Beste, C., Schüttke, A., Pfleiderer, B., and Saft, C. (2011). Music perception and movement deterioration in Huntington’s disease. PLoS Currents, 3(1253).
Bidelman, G. M. (2013). The role of the auditory brainstem in processing musically relevant pitch. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(264), 1–13.
Cooper, R. P., Cook, R., Dickinson, A., and Heyes, C. M. (2012). Associative (not Hebbian) learning and the mirror neuron system. Neuroscience Letters, 540, 28–36.
Grahn, J. A., and Brett, M. (2009). Impairment of beat-based rhythm discrimination in Parkinson’s disease.
Cortex, 45(1), 54–61.
Hevner, K. (1935). Expression in music: A discussion of experimental studies and theories. Psychological Review, 42(2), 186–204.
Heyes, C. (2010). Where do mirror neurons come from? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(4), 575–83.
Honing, H. (2011). Musical cognition: A science of listening. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Houston, D., and Haddock, G. (2007). On auditing auditory information: The influence of mood on memory for music. Psychology of Music, 35(2), 201–12.
Hunter, P. G., Schellenberg, E. G., and Griffith, A. T. (2011). Misery loves company: Mood-congruent emotional responding to music. Emotion, 11(5), 1068–72.
Huron, D. B. (2006). Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Huron, D. B., and Parncutt, R. (1993). An improved model of tonality perception incorporating pitch salience and echoic memory. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind and Brain, 12(2), 154–71.
Iordanescu, L., Grabowecky, M., and Suzuki, S. (2013). Action enhances auditory but not visual temporal sensitivity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(1), 108–14.
Juchniewicz, J. (2008). The influence of physical movement on the perception of musical performance.
Psychology of Music, 36(4), 417–27.
Juslin, P. N., and Sloboda, J. A. (2001). Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research, applications. Oxford University Press, UK.
Juslin, P. N., and Västfjäll, D. (2008). Emotional responses to music: The need to consider underlying mechanisms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(5), 559–75.
Krumhansl, C. L. (1990). Cognitive foundations of musical pitch. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lalazar, H., and Vaadia, E. (2008). Neural basis of sensorimotor learning: Modifying internal models.
Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18(6), 573–81.
Langner, G. (1992). Periodicity coding in the auditory system. Hearing Research, 60(2), 115–42.
Large, E. W., and Snyder, J. S. (2009). Pulse and meter as neural resonance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1169(1), 46–57.
Leman, M. (2000). An auditory model of the role of short-term memory in probe-tone ratings. Music Perception, 17(4), 481–509.
——(2008). Embodied music cognition and mediation technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Maes, P.-J., Amelynck, D., and Leman, M. (2012). Dance-the-Music: An educational platform for the modeling, recognition and audiovisual monitoring of dance steps using spatiotemporal motion templates.
EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, 2012(35), 1–16.
Maes, P.-J., Amelynck, D., Lesaffre, M., Arvind, D. K., and Leman, M. (2013). The “Conducting Master”:
An interactive, real-time gesture monitoring system based on spatiotemporal motion templates. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 29, 471–87.
Maes, P.-J., and Leman, M. (2013). The influence of body movements on children’s perception of music with an ambiguous expressive character. PLoS One, 8(1).
Maes, P.-J., Leman, M., Palmer, C., and Wanderley, M. (2014). Action-based effects on music perception.
Frontiers in Psychology, 4(1008), 1–14.
Manning, F., and Schutz, M. (2013). “Moving to the beat” improves timing perception. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 1133–39.
Marmel, F., Tillmann, B., and Delbé, C. (2010). Priming in melody perception: Tracking down the strength of cognitive expectations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(4), 1016–28.
Meyer, L. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Milne, A. J., Carlé, M., Sethares, W. A., Noll, T., and Holland, S. (2011). Scratching the scale labyrinth.
In C. Agon, M. Andreatta, G. Assayag, E. Amiot, J. Bresson, and J. Mandereau (Eds.), Mathematics and Computation in Music (LNCS) (Vol. 6726, pp. 180–95). Berlin: Springer.
Naveda, L., and Leman, M. (2010). The spatiotemporal representation of dance and music gestures using Topological Gesture Analysis (TGA). Music Perception, 28(1), 93–111.
Pazzaglia, M., Pizzamiglio, L., Pes, E., and Aglioti, S. M. (2008). The sound of actions in apraxia. Current Biology, 18(22), 1766–72.
Phillips-Silver, J., and Trainor, L. J. (2005). Feeling the beat: Movement influences infant rhythm perception. Science, 308(5727), 1430.
——(2007). Hearing what the body feels: Auditory encoding and rhythmic movement. Cognition, 105, 533–46.
Plamondon, J., Milne, A., and Sethares, W. A. (2009). Dynamic tonality: Extending the framework of tonality into the 21st century. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the South Central Chapter of the College Music Society, Norman, OK.
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 129–54.
Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., and Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(9), 661–69.
Rohrmeier, M. A., and Koelsch, S. (2012). Predictive information processing in music cognition: A critical review. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(2), 164–75.
Sedlmeier, P., Weigelt, O., and Walther, E. (2011). Music is in the muscle: How embodied cognition may influence music preferences. Music Perception, 28(3), 297–306.
Sethares, W. A. (2005). Tuning, timbre, spectrum, scale. New York: Springer.
Sievers, B., Polansky, L., Casey, M., and Wheatley, T. (2013). Music and movement share a dynamic structure that supports universal expressions of emotion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(1), 70–75.
Su, Y. H., and Pöppel, E. (2012). Body movement enhances the extraction of temporal structures in auditory sequences. Psychological Research, 76(3), 373–82.
Terhardt, E., Stoll, G., and Seewann, M. (1982). Pitch of complex signals according to virtual-pitch theory: Tests, examples, and predictions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 71(3), 671–78.
Thompson, W. F., Graham, P., and Russo, F. A. (2005). Seeing music performance: Visual influences on perception and experience. Semiotica, 156, 203–27.
Toiviainen, P., Luck, G., and Thompson, M. R. (2010). Embodied meter: Hierarchical eigenmodes in music-induced movement. Music Perception, 28(1), 59–70.
Van Dyck, E., Maes, P. J., Hargreaves, J., Lesaffre, M., and Leman, M. (2013). Expressing induced emotions through free dance movement. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 37(3), 175–90.
Van Noorden, L., and Moelants, D. (1999). Resonance in the perception of musical pulse. Journal of New Music Research, 28(1), 43–66.
Waszak, F., Cardoso-Leite, P., and Hughes, G. (2012). Action effect anticipation: Neurophysiological basis and functional consequences. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(2), 943–59.
Music perception and embodied music cognition