1-20 of 1899
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account

Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Close Modal
Sort by
Journal Articles
Music Perception (2021) 39 (1): 1–20.
Published: 01 September 2021
Includes: Supplementary data
Journal Articles
Music Perception (2021) 39 (1): 83–99.
Published: 01 September 2021
Includes: Supplementary data
Journal Articles
Music Perception (2021) 39 (1): 41–62.
Published: 01 September 2021
Journal Articles
Music Perception (2021) 39 (1): 21–40.
Published: 01 September 2021
Journal Articles
Music Perception (2021) 39 (1): 63–82.
Published: 01 September 2021
Images
Images
Experiment 1 results. (A) Nonsignificant interaction between visual target ...
Published: 01 September 2021
Figure 2. Experiment 1 results. (A) Nonsignificant interaction between visual target and auditory prime on choice reaction time (RT); (B) significant interaction between visual target and auditory prime on response error. Error bars = 95% CI. More
Images
Images
Sensitivity  (d’ ) versus median reaction time (SATF) for texture identific...
Published: 01 September 2021
Figure 4. Sensitivity (d’ ) versus median reaction time (SATF) for texture identification. Note: Nomenclature for plot titles is visual target-auditory prime ; e.g., Smoother-rough refers to incongruent trials in which a Smoother target is presented with a “rough” sound. Shaded areas: Standa... More
Images
A signal-detection model for how the timbre of a sound could affect visual ...
Published: 01 September 2021
Figure 5. A signal-detection model for how the timbre of a sound could affect visual identification by modifying sensory responses and/or decisional criteria. Panels A and B: In panel A, the distributions of sensory responses to the two visual stimuli are greater in the presence of a sound (dashed... More
Images
A) Average participant ratings for each target in Experiment 1; B) average ...
Published: 01 September 2021
Figure 1. A) Average participant ratings for each target in Experiment 1; B) average ratings for each progression. More
Images
Average participant ratings for each target in Experiment 1, divided by pro...
Published: 01 September 2021
Figure 2. Average participant ratings for each target in Experiment 1, divided by progression type. More
Images
Responses to final (mismatched) chords in Experiment 1, overlain with the r...
Published: 01 September 2021
Figure 3. Responses to final (mismatched) chords in Experiment 1, overlain with the range of responses from other targets’ inversions (root position, first inversion, or second inversion). More
Images
A) Average participant ratings for each target in Experiment 2; B) average ...
Published: 01 September 2021
Figure 4. A) Average participant ratings for each target in Experiment 2; B) average ratings for each progression. More
Images
Average participant ratings for each inversion of the final chord in Experi...
Published: 01 September 2021
Figure 5. Average participant ratings for each inversion of the final chord in Experiment 2, divided by progression type. More
Images
Conditional probabilities (using the paradigmatic target) for each model an...
Published: 01 September 2021
Figure 6. Conditional probabilities (using the paradigmatic target) for each model and each progression used in Experiment 3, compared to the average rating and highest average rating for each progression; Pearson and Spearman correlations between each target chord’s rating and probability (Full C... More
Images
Interaction of determinacy and frequency for each progression, where larger...
Published: 01 September 2021
Figure 7. Interaction of determinacy and frequency for each progression, where larger circle size indicates a greater correlation coefficient between behavioral and corpus data, darker shading shows higher average participant ratings, and thickness of the circle’s outline designates the range betw... More
Images
Progression 1, where the labeled final chords 1-4 are from Experiment 1. Pa...
Published: 01 September 2021
Figure A1. Progression 1, where the labeled final chords 1-4 are from Experiment 1. Paradigm drawn from Aldwell and Schachter (2003, p. 133), Clendinning and Marvin (2016 , pp. 288, 278), Sánchez-Kisielewska (2017) . More
Images
Progression 2, where the labeled final chords 1-4 are from Experiment 1. Pa...
Published: 01 September 2021
Figure A2. Progression 2, where the labeled final chords 1-4 are from Experiment 1. Paradigm drawn from Koskta, Payne, and Almén (2013 , p. 107), Clendinning and Marvin (2016 , p. 398). More
Images
Progression 3, where the labeled final chords 1-4 are from Experiment 1. Pa...
Published: 01 September 2021
Figure A3. Progression 3, where the labeled final chords 1-4 are from Experiment 1. Paradigm drawn from Aldwell and Schachter (2003, p. 133), Clendinning and Marvin (2016 , p. 352). More