Geake, J. G. (1999). an Information Processing Account of Audiational Abilities. Research Studies in...

7/27/2019 Geake, J. G. (1999). an Information Processing Account of Audiational Abilities. Research Studies in Music Educatio

1/15

http://rsm.sagepub.com/ Education

Research Studies in Music

http://rsm.sagepub.com/content/12/1/10

The online version of this article can be foun d at:

DOI: 10.1177/1321103X99012001021999 12: 10Research Studies in Music Education

John G. GeakeAn Information Processing Account of Audiational Abilities

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Education, Music and Psychology Research

can be found at:Research Studies in Music Education Additional services and information for

http://rsm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://rsm.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://rsm.sagepub.com/content/12/1/10.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jun 1, 1999Version of Record>>

at b-on: 00300 Universidade de Aveiro on April 21, 2013rsm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://rsm.sagepub.com/http://rsm.sagepub.com/http://rsm.sagepub.com/content/12/1/10http://rsm.sagepub.com/content/12/1/10http://rsm.sagepub.com/content/12/1/10http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sempre.org.uk/http://www.sempre.org.uk/http://rsm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://rsm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://rsm.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://rsm.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://rsm.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://rsm.sagepub.com/content/12/1/10.refs.htmlhttp://rsm.sagepub.com/content/12/1/10.refs.htmlhttp://rsm.sagepub.com/content/12/1/10.refs.htmlhttp://rsm.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://rsm.sagepub.com/content/12/1/10.full.pdfhttp://rsm.sagepub.com/content/12/1/10.full.pdfhttp://rsm.sagepub.com/http://rsm.sagepub.com/http://rsm.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://rsm.sagepub.com/content/12/1/10.full.pdfhttp://rsm.sagepub.com/content/12/1/10.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://rsm.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://rsm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sempre.org.uk/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://rsm.sagepub.com/content/12/1/10http://rsm.sagepub.com/


2/15

10

An Information Processing Account of Audiational Abilities

John G. Geake

AbstractRelationships between individual differences in audiation as measured by Gordons Music

Aptitude Profile (MAP) and generic information processing abilities as proposed by Luriawere investigated with a sample of primary school children, some of whom were musicallygifted. Scores on all three audiational dimensions of tone, rhythm and sensitivity weresignificantlycorrelated with successive synthesis, which may indicate a strong dependenceof the MAP on short-term memory. Success on the MAP was not as dependent onsimultaneous and executive syntheses. Musically gifted subjects were superior on the testsfor tone and rhythm, but not generally on tests for musical sensitivity, consistent with theindependence of musical sensitivity as a separate construct from conventional musicalaptitude. The musical experience of members of the musically gifted group did notcontribute to the variance of their MAP results.

IntroductionHis study investigated the extent to which individual differences in audiationalabilities of young children, as measured by Gordons Musical Aptitude Profile(MAP), could be explained in terms of a validated model of more general

information processing abilities, based on the neuropsychological work of Luria. Assuch, this study provided an assessment of the validity of the MAP, but using externalcriteria in contrast to the evaluations used extensively by Gordon (1995).

The rationale for this research was that audiation, as a process, is commonly citedthroughout the music cognition literature. Less has been said, however, of the specificcognitive demands of audiation, such as whether or not each stage of audiation demandsa different type of information processing.

AudiationConsistent with a multidimensional conceptualisation of musical aptitude, Gordon

(1979, 1986), Walters (1989) and McPherson (1995a) have each concluded that thefundamental difference in musical aptitude between individuals lies in their ability toaudiate. Walters (1989) defined audiation as &dquo;thehearing of sounds that are not beforethe ear at the moment, through recall, prediction, or conception&dquo;(p. 5). Audiationinvolves comprehension, not just imitation. For example, a musician with notationalaudiation can &dquo;hearwith his eyes and see with his ears.... he can see notation andaudiate the sound it represents, and he can audiate sound and visualise the notationneeded to

representit&dquo;

(p. 9).There is a

growing bodyof evidence to

suggestthat

audiation is at the core of musical ability and therefore fundamental for success in music(e.g., Gordon, 1989; McPherson, 1995a; Schleuter, 1984). Gordon (1989) found more than20 dimensions of stabilised music aptitude but argued that the dimensions of tonal andrhythm aptitude have the greatest bearing on music learning. It should be noted thatGordons research showed that both dimensions are not significantly related to oneanother, and that it is rare for a person to have a high level on both.

Gordon (1989) denoted eight types of audiation: 1. listening; 2. reading; 3. writingfrom dictation; 4. recalling or performing from memory; 5. recalling and writing frommemory; 6. creating and improvising; 7. creating and improvising while reading; and, 8.creating and improvising while writing. Each type of audiation goes through sixhierarchical stages which are so tightly chained that they overlap:

http://rsm.sagepub.com/http://rsm.sagepub.com/http://rsm.sagepub.com/http://rsm.sagepub.com/


3/15

11

1. momentary retention;2. initiating and audiating patterns, and recognising tonal centre and macrobeats;3. establishing objective or subjective tonality and meter;4. consciously retaining organised patterns;5. consciously recalling patterns organised and audiated in other pieces of music;6. conscious

predictionof

patterns (Walters, 1989).Walters suggested that the process of audiation is different for each individual dependingon aptitudes, backgrounds, personalities and retention skills.

Geake (1996) reported evidence that such individual differences, at least in someperceptual aspects of music aptitude, are related to individual differences in general, non-musical information processing abilities. The purpose of this present study was toinvestigate the extent to which individual differences in audiational abilities, as measuredby the MAP, can be explained in terms of these same general information processingabilities.

Information ProcessingThe model for measuring abilities in information processing in this work is thatbased on the neuropsychology of Aleksander Lurija (cited as Luria in English

translations) (e.g., Luria, 1970, 1973; Das, Naglieri & Kirby, 1994). A fuller description ofthis model, together with its applications to music, is presented in Geake (1996). In sum,information processing is neurologically integrative - perceptual information isprogressively abstracted as it is encoded for memory and further cognitive behaviour. Allafferent information processing can be categorised into two independent factors:simultaneous synthesis and successive synthesis. Successive synthesis refers to thetemporal organisation of information into wholes in which the elements are consecutivelyconnected, e.g., the coding of repeated rhythm patterns. Simultaneous synthesis refersto the quasi-spatialorganisation of information into arrangements which afford mentalconnectivity, e.g., recognising scale intervals. The range of individual differences inabilities to process information is wide, beginning at a level similar to that observed inpatients with mild neurological dysfunctions, and extending through to the extremesexhibited by child prodigies.

Kirby and Das (1990) suggested that ability on successive synthesis can beinterpreted as capacity of working memory, while ability on simultaneous synthesis canbe interpreted as &dquo;thesize of the units that can be constructed in working memory&dquo;(p.322). They described how successive and simultaneous syntheses are employed in acollaborative cycle on any complex coding task. This can be applied to the task oflistening to music. A sequence of notes must be coded (successive) so that a musicalsegment may be recognised (simultaneous), and then a sequence of segments (successive)may be recoded as a musical phrase (simultaneous), and so on. The importance of this

cyclic arrangementfor the assessment of individual differences is that low

abilityon either

of successive or simultaneous synthesis would cause a bottleneck for coding to proceedto higher levels. Such an analysis may explain individual differences in audiation.Gordons Stages 1 and 2 (above) are activities which seem dependent upon successivesynthesis, whereas Stages 3, 4 and 5 seem to require simultaneous encoding. Gordon(1989) noted the cyclic relations between Stages 1 - 4 as they interact with each other.This study sought specific evidence of such relationships between individual differencesin audiation and information processing.

Luria (1970; Das, Naglieri & Kirby, 1994) also noted that efferent informationprocessing, or executive synthesis, viz., the formation of intentions and programs forbehaviour, was independent of afferent information processing abilities. Here,hierarchical organisation is descendent rather than ascendant. With respect to music,Pogonowski (1989) conceptualised executive control as a process of audiating alternate



4/15

12

musical hypotheses in preparation for a musical plan, such as when improvising. This isconsistent with conjectures that variance in performance talent can be accounted for bymeasures on executive synthesis (Geake, 1996), in particular, selective attention, acontingent attribute for efficiency in learning. Thus, it would seem reasonable to suggestthat all of Gordons eight types of audiation require some degree of executive synthesis,with increasing executive responsibility as one ascends Gordons hierarchical stages,e.g., the generation of musical expectancies in the conscious prediction of patternsat thesixth audiational stage.

By examining the information processing demands of separate audiation abilities,this study also drew on a similar model of Karma (1985) wherein music aptitude involvesgeneric perceptual and cognitive processing. Psychometric instruments developed to testthe model involved &dquo;formingexpectations, recognising, structuring according to strongGestalts, structuring against strong Gestalts, changing expectations, timing, and analysingthe internal structures of strong Gestalts&dquo;(Karma, 1985, p. 11). More recent replicationstudies by Karma (1994) using a visual analogous test, and congenitally deaf subjects,showed that the essential cognitive process of audiation is non-modalic temporalpatterning, i.e., a non-musical generic process wherein the time-order of the stimulus isall important. This is what Luria refers to as successive synthesis. Thus, it was predictedthat successive

synthesis might play a dominatingrole in the

relationshipsbetween

individual differences in information processing abilities and audiation abilitiesinvestigated here.

Music Aptitude ProfileGordons MAP is a widely used instrument designed and validated to measure

musical aptitudes in children aged from 8 years (Australian primary school Years 3-4)through to 18 years (Australian senior secondary school Years 11-12). As this age rangeextends beyond the age that Gordon (1989) argues for stabilisation of musical aptitudes(around 9 years), it might be argued that the MAP is to some extent also a measure ofchildrens musical abilities. Presumably Gordon would not agree since he recommends adifferentiated music curriculum based on individual differences of young children in theirabilities to audiate, as measured by the MAP (Gordon, 1989).

The battery consists of three tests, each composed of two or three subtests (Table1).

Table 1: Structure of the Music Aptitude Profile (Gordon, 1995, p.12)In the MAP Manual (Gordon, 1995), the T and R tests are classified as Non-

Preferencetests, and the S test as a Preference test. Each of the tests requires listening toshort musical pieces, composed by Gordon, performed on violin and cello and recorded



5/15

13

on cassette tape, and marking responses on an answer sheet. Instructions and practiceexamples are included at the beginning of the tapes. Each item in the T test consists oftwo pieces: a questionand an aizszoer. The forced-choice responses are like, differellt oruiisure to indicate whether or not the answer is a melodic variation of the question. TheTl1 (Melody) subtest items are monophonic, performed on the violin. In the Two(Harmony) subtest, the variations occur in the lower of two parts, the upper plaved onthe violin, the lower on the cello. Each item in the R test consists of two pieces: also aquestioll and an allswer. Again, the forced-choice responses are like, differellt or Ullsure toindicate whether or not the answer is played at a different tempo (R,), or with a differentmeter, duple or triple, (R:2). Each questioll is used twice, hence the 40 items are groupedinto 20 pairs. In these non-preference tests, not all answers are different from theirquestions, and the same recordings are used for these items. In the S test, the samepiece is played twice but with a differing interpretation; the forced-choice response iseither 1 or 2 as preferred. To determine a correct response on what seems at first sight tobe a task with a high level of subjectivity, Gordon sought the responses to candidateitems of professional musicians. Only items which drew a 90% agreed response from thisreference group were included in the S test of the MAP.

To score the MAP, the raw subtest scores (number of correct responses) areconverted into standard scores via tables provided in the MAP Manual. Standard scoresfor the three test totals can then be computed from the totals of the subtest standardscores, again with reference to the appropriate conversion table in the MAP Manual.Similarly, an overall composite standard score, C, can be computed from the standard testscores. Importantly, for reporting, these standard scores are converted into age-normedpercentiles. The age-norms, along with the test validity and five revisions of the MAP,were derived from six large studies conducted by Gordon in the USA over some twodecades.

Interestingly for this study, there is a second table of musically select norms forthose students who participate in school music performance activities. This wasnecessary to include in the MAP manual because the proportion of students with regularmusic education or

performance experiencewho scored

highlyon the MAP was

significantly larger than the proportion of high scoring students without such musicexperience. These results notwithstanding, Gordon (1995) states that &dquo;neithermusicalperformance nor music lessons are necessary for the attainment of high scores on theMusical Aptitude Profile.&dquo;

Gordon (1995, pp. 14-15) offers a ten-point rationale for the MAP battery:1. Audiation ... should form an integral part of the each subtest ...2. Students should not have to be familiar with theoretical or historical musical

facts, to be able to read music or write music notation, or to play aninstrument ... They must only have been exposed to the sound of music.

3. A high degree of musical memory, appropriately associated with musicachievement, should not be necessary for satisfactoryperformance ...

4. All music in the battery should be specifically composed for the specificpurposes of the tests.

5. The music should be performed by professional musicians ... and therecordings ... should be of the highest technical quality ...

6. Students should enjoy listening to the tests ...7. The battery should be suitable to a wide range of ages and for a broad

distribution of musical aptitudes.8. Test questions should not be arranged from easy to difficult...



6/15

14

9. The types of responses ... should not be so difficult as to require abilitiesextraneous to music aptitude.

10. Students should not be forced to respond to test questions...The reasonableness of these assumptions deserves some comment. To begin

with, it should be noted that the MAP only explicitly involves one of Gordons eighttypes of audiation: listening. Next, it could be argued that to successfully respond to theitems in the three tests of the MAP, the young listener does not necessarily need to moveup through Gordons six stages of audiation. Rather, each stage seems to be implicitlyinvolved simultaneously but to a different degree in each subtest. Stage 1, momentaryretention, is obviously required to make sense of a sequential phenomena, such as a shortpiece of music. The various components of Stage 2, initiating and audiating patterns, andrecognising tonal centre and macrobeats, are not all equally required in the MAP subtests.For example, audiating patterns and recognising tonal centre are required for T~ and T-,,whereas audiating patterns and recognising macrobeats are needed for R, and R2-Initiating patterns is not an aspect of the MAP. Similarly, in Stage 3, establishingsubjective tonality and meter would seem to be essential, whereas establishing objectivetonality and meter may not. However, Stage 4, consciously retaining organised patterns,is a core ability in comparing a musical question with its associated musical answer inboth the T and R tests, as is Stage 5, consciously recalling patterns audiated in otherpieces of music. Stage 6, conscious prediction of patterns, is required explicitly in allthree tests to undertake comparisons of repeated phrases. In contrast, the unconsciousprediction of patterns required for generating expectancies when listening to real musicseems not to be required in the MAP. It may be conjectured, then, that individualstrengths or limitations in general information processing abilities may compromise someof Gordons assumptions listed above, especially assumption 9 regarding extraneousabilities, and assumption 3 regarding musical memory.

Consequently, the three specific research questions which this study attempted toaddress were:

1. What relationships exist between each of the three information processingdimensions of simultaneous, successive and executive synthesis and the threedimensions of audiational abilities measured by the MAP - tone, rhythm andmusical sensitivity?

2. Do young musically gifted subjects show superior performance on the MAPover young normal subjects, and if so, on which of the dimensions of tone,rhythm and/or musical sensitivity?

3. Is there evidence for the conjectured increasing dependence on simultaneousand executive syntheses for increasingly demanding levels of audiation?

MethodThe study sample was drawn from two sources: a larger group (N = 68) drawn

from a normal population, ages 10-12 years, the intact Year 6 at a NSW government co-educational primary school, and a smaller group (N = 12) of musically gifted children (5female, 7 male), ages 9-13 years, recruited by circular to the members of a regional giftedand talented education association.

Whereas a normal sample might be expected to include some musically giftedchildren anyway, the purpose of the additional musically gifted children in this study wasto provide a discrete comparison group of subjects who would be predicted to performbetter on the MAP. It was also anticipated that the inflation of the sample with themusically gifted children might inter alia balance the somewhat positively skeweddistribution of abilities of the intact Year 6 through its inclusion of children with mild tomoderate intellectual impairments. The putative relationships between informationprocessing abilities and audiational abilities, then, were investigated with a whole sample


7/15

15

with presumably a somewhat larger variance in both types of abilities, and by comparisonbetween normal and musically gifted groups of subjects.

Clearly, the efficacy of this approach is contingent upon the musically giftedgroup actually being musically gifted, and not just wishful about such superiority, giventhat the group was self-selected, or rather, parent-selected. It should be noted in passingthat parental selection (and self-selection) for nominated gifted activities tends to be morereliable than the stereotype of the pushy-parent (Gross, 1993). There was no other testor criterion for membership of the musically gifted group; it was operationalised as thosewho volunteered on the basis of an appeal for musically gifted children to participate in aresearch project. The parent(s) of each of these children received a full report of theirchilds results on all quantitative measures, including the MAP. The musically giftedsubjects were interviewed about their personal musical history with an interview protocoldesigned by McPherson (1995b). This was undertaken, in part, to assess the relativemusical superiority of this group.

All subjects undertook the complete MAP. The Year 6 undertook the MAP intheir (double-size) classroom using the school tape deck with introductions by the author.The musically gifted group undertook the MAP at the authors previous university, afterschool hours, using a university tape deck, also with introductions by the author. Forboth

groups,the three

partsof the MAP

(R,T and

S)were undertaken a week

apart,as

recommended by Gordon (1995). All subjects also undertook the complete computer-based battery of six

information processing tests [Appendix A] (Fitzgerald, Fraser & Fitzgerald, inpreparation). This battery consists of six computer-based marker tests, standardised forthe sample age-range, two each for simultaneous synthesis (Illverted Figures Test, PaperFolding Test), successive synthesis (Word Spall Test, Number Span Test), and the attentionalaspects of executive synthesis (Size Attention Test, Letter/Number Attention Spaii). All testswere taken under timed conditions, usually 20 seconds per item. Practice items wereprovided, and feedback was given on each item. The total time required for the six testswas about 30 minutes. The Year 6 subjects did the information processing tests on theirclass computers during school time over a period of six weeks. Four subjects left theschool during that period. The musically gifted group undertook these tests on auniversity computer, after school hours.

The MAP raw scores were all converted into standard scores for analysis. Themusically select norms were used to prepare the MAP profiles reported to each subject inthe musically gifted group.

ResultsQualitative assessment of the gifted group

A qualitative assessment of the reasonableness of the musically gifted group wasmade through the responses to questions in the interview which solicited theirapproaches and values about music learning, and by comparing the music learningcharacteristics of the interviewees with the general learning characteristics of gifted andtalented children.

All of the musically gifted subjects were enthusiastic about their music lessons.Three held ambitious objectives for future levels of performance, e.g., &dquo;hopeto befamous&dquo;,while the majority had more intrinsic long term objectives, e.g., &dquo;toplay well&dquo;.Most also had intrinsic reasons for continuing with music lessons, e.g., &dquo;Ilike music&dquo;,or,&dquo;Ilike learning&dquo;,but four subjects attributed the main reason to the wishes of theirparents. Influence of peers in learning music or choice of instrument was noticeablyabsent from all but one interviewee. Not all subjects could remember when they beganlearning music, and so parents were consulted on this question. Several of the parentsmentioned early exposure to a particular instrument, some from as early as age 3 years.Six

subjectswere

learningmore than one instrument. Of the

sample,onlv one

subject



8/15

16

(age 11) showed indications of notable musical talent in that he was composing works forkeyboard and performing his compositions publicly to some acclaim.

In answer to the question: What do you think you will like most about lear7l1zgmusic?two themes emerged - both experientiallyintrinsic. The first concerned the experience oflistening or playing music, including its emotional dimension, e.g., &dquo;Ilike the sound&dquo;,&dquo;iffeeling sad it makes you happy&dquo;,&dquo;play[music] for people - they enjoy it&dquo;,&dquo;musicis fun&dquo;,&dquo;Ilike chords,

harmony,that is, the sound of music&dquo;,&dquo;itsthe sound - emotions,

rhythm&dquo;.The second theme concerned learning music per se, e.g., &dquo;Ican learn new typesof music&dquo;,&dquo;Ifeel good to have learnt something, [to have made an] achievement&dquo;,&dquo;[Ilike] having the knowledge - being able to make music&dquo;,&dquo;[Ilike] memorising music&dquo;.

As the emphases on intrinsic learning objectives and experiences of theseinterviewees were consistent with the general characteristics of gifted children reportedby Clark (1983) and others (e.g., Delisle, 1992; Gallagher, 1985), it seemed that it wouldnot be invalid to employ the musically gifted group as such in this study. Nevertheless,another possible interpretation was that these subjects were generally academically giftedchildren who happened to be learning musical instruments. However, since the focus ofthis study was on possible correlations with general cognitive abilities (Carroll, 1993) withnon-musical cognitive abilities (Karma, 1994), such a distinction was deemed unimportanthere.

Information processing abilitiesThe information processing test data from the six marker tests of the whole

sample were reduced to three orthogonal dimensions using principal component analysiswith Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalisation (Table 2). The three componentsextracted had a total explained variance of close to 72%. The high loadings of the twomarker tests for successive synthesis, Word Spail (WORD) and Number Spall (NUMBER)on Component 1 indicated that this component reflected successive synthesis. Theloading of one of the two marker tests for attention, Size Attelltioll Spall (SIZE), onComponent 2, indicated that this component reflected executive synthesis. Similarly,

Component3, with a

high loadingsof one of the two marker tests for simultaneous

synthesis, Paper Foldiiig Test (PAPER), indicated that this component reflectedsimultaneous synthesis. The similar loading of the other marker test for attention, LetterNumber Attention Span (NUMLET), on Component 1 was indicative of the successivedemands of this task and its similarity to the two marker tests for successive synthesis,i.e., subjects may have paid attention to the different sub-sequences rather than to thesame sequence in different ways. The even loadings of the other test for simultaneoussynthesis, Inverted Matrices (INVERT), probably indicated that this task was too difficultfor these subjects. This component structure was somewhat less reflective of the Luriamodel than that previously obtained (Geake, 1996). Consequently, the informationprocessing results here should be treated with some caution.

Bartlett factor scores were calculated for each of the threecomponents,

suc, simand exec. To compare the information processing abilities of musically gifted subjectswith the normal subjects, one-way ANOVAs were undertaken with each of thecomponent scores of suc, sim and exec as dependent variables. Only the effect for sucwas significant, [F(1,77) = 10.94, p < .001, t~ 2 -.124]. The mean suc score of themusically gifted subjects (0.93) was higher than that of the normal subjects (-0.17), abilityon successive synthesis contributing to over 12% of the variance between the two groups.

Abilities on simultaneous and executive syntheses seemed not to be as critical, but thismay be due the low loadings of two of the marker tests in the component structure. Insum, these analyses suggest that successive processing was a common dominant mode ofinformation processing for all subjects in the study, particularly high for the musicallygifted group.

at b-on: 00300 Universidade de Aveiro on April 21 2013rsm sagepub comDownloaded from


9/15

17

Table 2: Principal components structure of the combined-groups sample Abilities on the MAP

Possible relationships between the three dimensions of information processingand abilities on the MAP for the whole sample were investigated with a series of Pearsoncorrelations between each of suc, sim and exec and each of the MAP seven subtests, thethree test totals for tone, rhythm, sensitivity, and the MAP composite score (Table 3).

Although none of the individual correlations was strong enough to explain more than23% of the variance, the correlations between suc and every MAP score were significantat the 99% level, i.e., success on every test of the MAP was dependent on abilities insuccessive synthesis. Scores on one subtest (RI) was also related to abilities insimultaneous synthesis, while scores on three subtests (T 2R2 S2) were also related toabilities in executive synthesis.

* = p < .05, ** = p < .001 (2-tailed)Table 3: Correlations between information processing abilities and MAP test scores

The prediction of superior performance on the MAP of the musically gifted groupover the normal group was tested with a one-way ANOVA for each of the MAP subtest,test and composite scores (Table 4). In general the predicted difference between thegroups was confirmed: the musically gifted group had a significantly higher MAP



10/15

18

composite score (69.17) than the normal group (44.93). The significant contributions tothis difference can be seen most clearly from the results for the two tests T and R, andmore informatively, the subtests T l T 2R1 and S2. The strongest differences were for thetonal subtests Ty and T 2. Interestingly, the differences for two of the sensitivity subtestsS, and S3were not significant.

Table 4: Comparisons between mean MAP test scores of musically gifted and normal subjects

Music experienceThe extent to which performance on the MAP might be related to music

education experience was checked for the musically gifted group, where the musiceducation experience of each subject was ascertained as a part of their interview. It wasnot possible to interview the larger normal group. This check for an experience effect,then, was limited by the small subsample, but was advantaged in that each subject had atleast some non-trivial experience of music education. All of these subjects indicated thateither their parents were ellthusiastic or fairlykeen, i.e., that their home environment wassupportive of their musical activities. Typically, each of these children practiced foraround 45 minutes on 4 days of the week. Eight of these 12 students were learning thepiano; most had experienced learning another instrument, which included violin, cello,saxophone, euphonium, trombone, clarinet, drums, voice and guitar. Pearsoncorrelations (r) were computed between the music education experience (mean = 3.25years, sd = 1.42 years, range = 1-5 years) of the gifted music group and each of the MAPtest scores T, R and S. All r were small and non-significant.

DiscussionThe aim of this study was to investigate possible relationships between

audiational abilities as measured on Gordons MAP and informational processing abilitiesas measured by the Fitzgerald battery of information processing tests based on Luriasmodel of simultaneous, successive and executive synthesis. The variance in musicalabilities of the whole sample was inflated through the addition of some parent- and self-selected musically gifted children of similar chronological age.

The first research question was concerned with the relationships between each ofthe three information processing dimensions of simultaneous, successive and executivesynthesis and the three dimensions of audiational abilities - tone, rhythm and musicalsensitivity - which constitute the MAP. Whereas the operationalised Luria modelemployed here predicts independent normal distributions on each of the three



11/15

19

dimensions of information processing, it was clear from the component structure that thissample was strongest overall on successive synthesis, i.e., that successive synthesis was apreferred mode of informational encoding. Geake (1995) found a similar successiveinformation processing preference in a sample of Canadian elementary school children,where it was conjectured that the relative lower preference for simultaneous andexecutive strategies might be in part due to a pedagogical bias in favour of classroomactivities which predominantly rewarded successive strategies to the exclusion of activitieswhich demanded simultaneous strategies. Perhaps a similar comment is applicable here.

Given the predominance of successive processing abilities in the whole sample,those results indicating weak or non-significant relationships between simultaneous andexecutive syntheses and MAP scores found in this study perhaps should be treated withsome caution. Nevertheless, there was some evidence here for the conjecturedrelationships between executive synthesis and the MAP through significant correlationswith subtest scores T 2 R2 and 57, and between simultaneous synthesis and the MAP

through a significant correlation with subtest score Rl. Two pieces of evidence suggestthat the component structure may provide the most likely explanation of why other MAPsubtest correlations were not stronger. First, the correlation between executive synthesisand the MAP Composite Score C was significant, explaining about 10% of the commonvariance. Appropriate attention clearly is a necessary condition for success on all tests ofthe MAP, and this is reflected in the relationship between executive synthesis and C, ifnot for all parts of C in this instance. Second, Pearson correlations between the MAPsubtests and scores on the Paper Folding Test, one of the two marker tests forsimultaneous synthesis, were all larger than corresponding correlations with the simfactor score (x T, = 7%, T2 - 9%, R, = 16%, R2 = 10%, S, = 4%, S2 = 7%, S3= 5%). Insum, the results here indicate that audiational abilities as measured by the MAP aredependent to some extent on general attentional abilities, and to a much less extent onsimultaneous information processing abilities.

In contrast, these results show that audiational abilities as measured by the MAPare strongly dependent on general successive information processing abilities. An

explanation of the significant correlations between successive synthesis and all of the testand subtest scores of the MAP can be provided by Kirby and Dass (1990)conceptualisation of successive information processing as a measure of short-termmemory capacity. Certainly, the criterion variable of the two marker tests for successivesynthesis, Word Spaii and Number Span, is the length of the remembered sequence.Similarly, the MAP items require short-term memorisation of two melodic sequences forcomparison. In fact, the MAP tests are quite impossible without a well functioning short-term memory. This may, at first light, seem at odds with Gordons ninth rational for theMAP: &dquo;Thetypes of responses ... should not be so difficult as to require abilitiesextraneous to music aptitude.&dquo;However, abilities to process information are not so muchextraneous abilities as necessary or underpinning abilities. Nevertheless, Gordon doesnot seem to acknowledge the importance of short-term memory to performance on theMAP. It could be argued, then, that either the variance of individual differences foundon the MAP may be predicted partially by the variance of individual differences in shortterm memory, independent of musical abilities per se, or, that what is meant by superiormusical ability implicitly includes a higher than average capacity for short term memory . 0

Some evidence in favour of the latter conjecture was found in addressing thesecond research question of whether or not young musically gifted subjects showed apredicted superior performance on the MAP over young normal subjects. The MAPdiscrimination between musically gifted and normal subjects on the T and R tests is bestexplained here as being the result of the significantly higher successive informationprocessing abilities of the musically gifted group. In other words, following Kirby andDas (1990), the musically gifted group had significantlybetter short-term memories thanthe normal group.



12/15

20

This in turn raises the question of (musical) context-specific development of short-term memory. It also suggests some consideration of Gordons third rational for theMAP: &dquo;Ahigh degree of musical memory, appropriately associated with musicachievement, should not be necessary for satisfactoryperformance.&dquo;Here Gordon doesnot differentiate between long-term and short-term musical memory. Presumably Gordonis referring to the non-dependence of the MAP on long-term musical memory. However,whereas for Gordon and

similarlyhighly experiencedmusicians the short-term

memorydemands of the MAP items would be slight, for young musical novices this may not bethe case.

That said, the tonal test T, through both subtests Ty and T2, was the mostdiscriminating of the three MAP tests between the musically gifted and normal groups,consistent with Gordons (1989) claim that pitch is discriminatorily privileged over othermusical attributes such as rhythm or timbre. Interestingly, on the musical sensitivity Stest, two of the subtests S, (Phrasing) and S3 (Style) did not significantly discriminatebetween the musically gifted and the normal groups; only on the subtest S2 (Balance) didthe musically gifted group score significantly better than the normal group. From thecorrelations of the information

processingdimensions with the MAP subtests, this result

for S2 could be explained by the (non-significant)superiority of executive processingabilities of the musically gifted group, presumably utilised for a more efficaciousgeneration of musical expectancies.

Nevertheless, the null discriminatory result for the S test overall supports Boyles(1992) taxonomy of constructs related to musical abilities, wherein musical sensitivity,defined as the acuity of perception and responsiveness to subtle differences in musicreflectingboth auditory discriminations and affective responses, is independent of niusicalaptitude, defined as the potential for learning musical skills. Although both of these twoconstructs contribute to musical ability, their independence can explain the phenomenonof music listeners who are passionate and sensitive music appreciators, e.g., some music

critics, without being accomplished music performers. Gordons use of musicalsensitivity as a dimension of audiational ability is justified, then, only to the extent of itsindependence from the other dimensions. The use of musical sensitivity as a subsidiaryand contributing factor to music aptitude is inconsistent with Boyles taxonomy, andinconsistent with the experimental evidence which Boyle cites in its favour. To this end,that the MAP is, as it is titled, a profile,and that the recommended manner of reporting isas a profile of all subtest age norms, rather than as a simple composite score, is a strengthof the MAP in this regard.

The third interest of this study was on the conjectured increasing dependence onsimultaneous and executive syntheses for increasingly demanding levels of audiation.

Although there was little evidence in this study for the predicted transfer of information

processing strategies as the audiational demands ascended Walters six stages, it wasargued above that not all of the six stages seem equally prominent in the MAP as such.However, it certainly could be argued that each of Gordons stages is reliant on short-term memory, and thus on successive synthesis. But, whereas short-term memory spanmay be crucial for success on the MAP, and obviously crucial for musical performancetalent, e.g., improvisation, it is obviously not the only critical contributor to musicalabilities. As Karma (1985) points out, the formation of Gestalts is crucial for musicalinformation processing, and, as Geake (1996) has argued, this in turn requires executiveprocessing abilities, viz., inward-directed attention, for boundary discrimination betweenmusical segments. That is, other information processing dimensions are important forthe complete expression of musical talent. The results here could suggest, then, that theMAP is less than a

completemeasure of musical

aptitudein that it

maybe too

dependenton successive synthesis to the general exclusion of other information processingdimensions.


13/15

21

Although not an intended focus for this study, the non relationship betweenmusical experience and MAP scores for the musically gifted group deserves a briefcomment. This result is consistent with similar data from a larger sample of musicallygifted children (Geake, 1996), and consistent with Lurias claim (e.g., 1970) that thedimensions of information processing are determined by the information processingdemands rather than characteristics of the task at hand, e.g., that for successive synthesis,the sequential structuring of stimuli is more important than whether the stimuli are wordsor

picturesor

music. Similarly,Karma

(1994) argues that sound itself is not necessary formusic cognition, rather, it is the temporal structuring of the stimulus that is critical.Karmas results indicated a proportion of amusical variance of 61%.

Nevertheless, this is not to overlook the contribution of musical environment tomany important factors such as priming and opportunity. Karma (1994) suggests that thelargest portion of the unexplained variance in his study was due to music-specificprocessing. In this present study, an example of such a contribution was seen with theresponse of the normal group to the timbres of the instruments used for the MAP items.It was obvious that the experience of listening to a solo violin or cello was(disappointingly) novel for almost all of the Year 6 children in the study. DespiteGordons evidence of near zero correlation of music style preference with MAP results, itis suggested that future revisions of the MAP may need to take into account those

(majority?) children whose musical experiences currently exclude conventional orchestralinstruments.On the non relationship between music experience and the MAP, Gordon (1986)

argues that the music aptitude of children in the age range of the sample fluctuates inaccordance with the quality of their environment, in contrast to the earlier age range of 6-8 years when musical aptitude is developmental. Gordons point is that the influence ofmusical experience is qualitative rather than quantitative. The interview responses of themusically gifted group could only obliquely indicate the satisfactory quality of each ofthese students musical environment.

Conclusion

This study sought specific evidence for relationships between individualdifferences in abilities of audiation and general information processing with an upperprimary school sample inflated with a small group of self-selected musically giftedchildren. Scores on each of the three dimensions of audiational abilities measured by theMAP - tone, rhythm and sensitivity - were all strongly correlated with non-music specificabilities on successive synthesis as determined by a components analysis of informationprocessing marker test scores. Unlike in some previous information processing studies ofmusical aptitude, the involvement of simultaneous and executive synthesis were not asevident, suggesting that the MAP, with its strong dependence on short-term memory,may not provide as complete an assessment of musical aptitude as intended.

Musically gifted subjects did show superior overall performance on the MAP overnormal subjects, most strongly on the tests for tone, but not generally on the tests formusical sensitivity. While this result showed support for the independence of musicalsensitivity as a separate construct from musical aptitude, it also highlighted a strength ofthe MAP in its profile, as opposed to composite score, reporting.

The strength of these findings may be somewhat compromised by the less thansatisfactory loadings of two of the marker tests on to their respective components, andthe small sized group of musically gifted subjects. Nevertheless, these results do suggestsome caution if music teachers are to use the MAP to stream children into differentiatedmusic programs, and that other complementary means of assessing musical aptitudeshould also be employed in conjunction with the MAP.



14/15

22

AcknowledgmentsThis research was supported by an Australian Research Council (Small) Grant

through Southern Cross University. Permission to conduct research in NSW GovernmentSchools was granted by the Director of the Quality Assurance Directorate. Grateful thanksare due to the subjects, and their parents, teachers and school principal.

References.

Boyle, J. D. (1992). Evaluation of Music Ability. In R. Colwell (Ed.), Handbook of Research onMusic Teaching and Learning (pp. 247-265). New York: Schirmer Books.

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-analytic Studies. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Clark, B. (1983). Growing Up Gifted,2nd Ed. Colombus: Merrill Publishing Co.Das, J. P., Naglieri,J. A., & Kirby, J. R. (1994). Assessment of Cognitive Processes: The PASS Theory

of Intelligence.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Delisle, J. R. (1992). Guiding the Social and Emotional Development of GiftedYouth . New York:

Longman.

Fitzgerald,D., Fraser, C.&

Fitzgerald,R. (in preparation).Gallagher, J. (1985) Teaching the Gifted.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Geake, J. G. (1995). Individual Differences in Information Processing Abilities: Grade 5 students at

Davie Jones Elementary School, Maple Ridge School District, Pitt Meadows, B. C. Report toDavie Jones Elementary School.

Geake, J. G. (1996). Why Mozart? An information processing account of musical abilities, ResearchStudies in Music Education, 7, 28-45.

Gordon, E. E. (1979). Developmental music aptitude as measured by the Primary Measures ofMusical Audiation. Psychology of Music, 7(1), 42-49.

Gordon, E. E. (1986). The Nature, Description, Measurement and Evaluation of Music Aptitudes.Chicago: GIA Publications.

Gordon, E. E. (1989). Learning Sequences in Music. Chicago: GIA Publications.Gordon, E. E. (1995). Music Aptitude Profile. 5th Revision. Chicago: GIA Publications.Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally Gifted Children. London: Routledge.Karma, K. (1985). Components of auditive structuring - Towards a theory of musical aptitude.

Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 82, 1-13.Karma, K. (1994). Auditory and visual temporal structuring: How important is sound to musical

thinking? Psychology of Music, 22, 20-30.Kirby, J. R., & Das, J. P. (1990). A cognitive approach to intelligence: Attention, coding and planning.

Canadian Psychology, 31(4), 320-333.Luria, A. R. (1970). The functional organisation of the brain. Scientific American, 222(3), 66-78.Luria, A. R. (1973). The Working Brain: An Introduction to Neuropsychology. New York: Basic

Books.McPherson, G. E. (1995a). Honing the craft: Improving the way we teach the musically giftedand

talented. (169-176). In H. Lee & M. Barrett (Eds.). Honing the Craft: Improving the Qualityof Education. Proceedings of the Australian Society for Music Education 10th NationalConference held in Hobart, June/July,1995.

McPherson, G. E. (1995b). The assessment of musical performance: Development and validation offive new measures. Psychology of Music, 23, 142-161.

Pogonowski, L. (1985). Metacognition: A Dimension of Musical Thinking. In E. Boardman (Eds.),Dimensions of Musical Thinking (pp. 9-19). Reston, Virginia: Music Educators NationalConference.

Schleuter, S. L.(1984).

A Sound Approach

to

TeachingInstrumentalists. Kent, OH: The Kent State

University Press.Walters, D. L. (1989). Audiation: The Term and the Process. In D. L. W. &. C. C. Taggart (Eds.),

Readings in Music Learning Theory (pp. 3-11). Chicago: GIA Publications.


15/15

23

About the AuthorDr. John Geake is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Learning and EducationalDevelopment, The University of Melbourne, where he is Head of the Gifted Developmentand Education Unit. He teaches courses in educational psychology, gifted education andcognition, and supervises postgraduate students including several who are investigatingvarious aspects of music cognition and education. His current research interests includenon-linear

psychophysicalmodels of music and

perception.His

publications explorethe

educational implications of this research, particularly for academically gifted students.

AppendixThe Fitzgerald Computer-Adaptive Information Processing Abilities Test

BatteryThe battery consists of: Inverted Shapes Recall Test and Paper FoldingTest as marker tests for

simultaneous synthesis; Word Recall Test and Number Recall Test as marker tests for successivesynthesis; and, Letter-Number Attention Test and Size Attention Test as Stroop-type marker tests forexecutive synthesis. All tests are undertaken under timed conditions. Responses are made byusing the mouse. Each test is preceded by examples and practice sessions with feedback on correctresponses.

Inverted Shapes Recall TestIn this task subjects have to choose, from a set of five lures, which is a target shape

inverted by a rotation through 180 degrees. The computer graphic shapes are closed figures whichcan be drawn on paper by joining some of the dots on either a 3 x 3 or 4 x 4 dot matrix. A targetshape is shown to the subject for one second. This is immediately followed by fifteen secondsresponse time for subjects to select the inverted target. There are fifteen items in all.

Paper FoldirigTest

Computer graphics indicate how a sheet of paper has been folded two or three times andthen has had a hole or holes punched through the folded portion. The task is to choose which offive lures represents the pattern of holes of the unfolded paper. Twenty seconds are allowed foreach response. There are 15 items.

Word

SpatzTest

This task tests ability to recall sequences of words. A set of words is presented on screenone at a time. The whole set is then presented with the words in a random order. Subjects areinstructed to place the words in the original order of presentation. Twenty seconds are allowed for ,each response. The sets are from three to thirteen words long. The length of the set for anyparticular item is determined adaptively by subject responses to previous items.

Number Span TestThis task is identical to the Word Span Test except that sets of numbers are used.Letter/Number Attention Test

This task is identical to the Number Span Test except that mixed sets of numbers and lettersare used. Subjects have to re-order either the numbers or the letters, as indicated before the set ispresented. The sets are from five to fifteen characters long.

Size Attention Test

This is a Stroop-type test for letter size with the words &dquo;small&dquo;and &dquo;large&dquo;written in smallor large fonts. Subjects are instructed to attend to either the words or their size. Mixed sets ofsmall, small, large and large are from three to thirteen words long. ,

t b 00300 U i id d d A i A il 21 2013bD l d d f

Geake, J. G. (1999). an Information Processing Account of Audiational Abilities. Research Studies in...

Documents

Transcript of Geake, J. G. (1999). an Information Processing Account of Audiational Abilities. Research Studies in...