↓ Skip to main content

Individuality That is Unheard of: Systematic Temporal Deviations in Scale Playing Leave an Inaudible Pianistic Fingerprint

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Individuality That is Unheard of: Systematic Temporal Deviations in Scale Playing Leave an Inaudible Pianistic Fingerprint
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00134
Pubmed ID
Authors

Floris Tijmen Van Vugt, Hans-Christian Jabusch, Eckart Altenmüller

Abstract

Whatever we do, we do it in our own way, and we recognize master artists by small samples of their work. This study investigates individuality of temporal deviations in musical scales in pianists in the absence of deliberate expressive intention. Note-by-note timing deviations away from regularity form a remarkably consistent "pianistic fingerprint." First, eight professional pianists played C-major scales in two sessions, separated by 15 min. Euclidian distances between deviation traces originating from different pianists were reliably larger than traces originating from the same pianist. As a result, a simple classifier that matched deviation traces by minimizing their distance was able to recognize each pianist with 100% accuracy. Furthermore, within each pianist, fingerprints produced by the same movements were more similar than fingerprints resulting in the same scale sound. This allowed us to conclude that the fingerprints are mostly neuromuscular rather than intentional or expressive in nature. However, human listeners were not able to distinguish the temporal fingerprints by ear. Next, 18 pianists played C-major scales on a normal or muted piano. Recognition rates ranged from 83 to 100%, further supporting the view that auditory feedback is not implicated in the creation of the temporal signature. Finally, 20 pianists were recognized 20 months later at above chance level, showing signature effects to be long lasting. Our results indicate that even non-expressive playing of scales reveals consistent, partially effector-unspecific, but inaudible inter-individual differences. We suggest that machine learning studies into individuality in performance will need to take into account unintentional but consistent variability below the perceptual threshold.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 5%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 34 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 24%
Student > Master 6 16%
Researcher 6 16%
Lecturer 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 38%
Arts and Humanities 4 11%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 10 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2013.
All research outputs
#13,148,117
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,427
of 29,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,731
of 280,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#533
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,459 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.