Importance of Communication Cues in Music Performance according to Performers and Audience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was designed to investigate what types of communication cues performers and audiencemembers regard as important during music performance. Our attempt differed from other studies in that itexplored a holistic perspective of multiple cues in music performance through self-reports. The questionnairesprovided a simple model of reciprocal communication flows among four roles, namely, performer, co-performer,audience, and co-audience member, as well as 10 types of communication cues, namely, facial expression, gaze,body movement, posture, touch, interpersonal distance, verbal information, attire, breath, and musical sound. Atotal of 86 performers and 149 audience members filled in the questionnaires. In referring to this model andimagining music performances, they rated the importance of communication cues according to their role asperformers or audience members, situations (practice/performance). Performers selected the music genres thattheir performances usually play. Performers were also asked to draw stage positioning in music performance.The main findings are as follows: (1) Participants’ roles as either performers or audience members affected theiropinions about the importance of communication cues. In inter-performer communication, sound, gaze, bodymovement, facial expression, and breath were rated as highly important in both practice and performance. Inperformer-to-audience communication, musical sound, facial expression, and body movement were rated ashighly important. (2) Participants regarded similar cues as important regardless of their role: senders andreceivers of inter-performer and performer-to-audience communication. (3) Music genre (classical or popular)and situation (practice or performance) influenced participants’ opinions about the importance of communicationcues and stage positioning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".