Singing development as a sensorimotor interaction problem.

ABSTRACT - Singing a ubiquitous human behavior and plays a significant role in human culture and socialization. Research on children's singing has focused on music instruction techniques for developing singers, yet little known about the developmental mechanisms underlying singing acquisition. Recently, Berkawska and Dalla Bella (2009a) proposed a sensorimotor loop model of singing to explain poor singing ability in the adult population. Here, we review the literature on the development of singing during childhood in the context of the sensorimotor loop model of singing. KEYWORDS - singing, development, children, auditory perception, motor function Singing widely regarded as a universal human behavior (Dowling, 1984; Welch, 1994) that serves a number of important social functions. Singing an effective means of transmitting cultural knowledge and social customs (Chatwin, 1987; Cong-HuyenTon-Nu, 1979). Singing also used to ease the pressures of everyday life. For example, many workers use song to accompany work activities, especially those requiring the synchronization of repetitive movements (Cong-Huyen-Ton-Nu, 1979; Keil, 1979). Singing often an important part of courtship, and it has been proposed that robust musical calls may signal the possession of healthy, appealing genes to prospective mates (e.g., Huron, 2001). In general, singing can promote social cohesion, reinforce cherished values and ideals, foster shared identity, and promote emotional contagion (Booth, 1981; Peretz, 2006). Finally, singing plays a critical role in child rearing and the caregiver-infant bond. Lullabies and playsongs are found in all known cultures, suggesting that they serve an important function in maternal child care (Trehub, 2000; Trehub & Trainor, 1998). Despite the importance of singing in both human development and human culture, there has been relatively little empirical research on the acquisition of singing during childhood. Singing thought to emerge spontaneously without formal instruction during early child development (Dalla Bella, Giguere, & Peretz, 2007) and many studies over the last 30 years have documented a relatively orderly progression of the acquisition of specific singing abilities during childhood (e.g., see Welch, 2006 for a review). However, the developmental mechanisms underlying singing acquisition during childhood are still not well understood. Although there general agreement that both maturational and experiential factors affect singing development (e.g., Davidson, McKernon, & Gardner, 1981; Stadler-Elmer, 2006; Welch, 1985), there are few empirical studies of how these factors interact. Welch (1986) proposed a model of singing acquisition in which children's singing behaviors appear in a fixed order from Stage 1, where the words of a song are the initial center of interest rather than the melody, to Stage 5, where there are no significant melodic or pitch errors in a child's vocal productions. Presumably this progression impacted by culture, practical experience, and genetically-driven maturation. Detailed study of singing development requires, first, a definition of singing and, second, a notion of what constitutes mature singing behavior. With respect to the first question, Welch (1994) noted that the judgment of an utterance to be speech or song is defined by a complex web of interacting factors encompassing perception, cognition, physical development, maturation, society, culture, history and intentionality (p. 3). Early in development, singing and talking may be less differentiated than later. Indeed, infant-directed speech often referred to as musical speech because of its exaggerated pitch contours, rhythmic patterning and repetition (Fernald, 1991). The boundaries between speech and song can be even less clear in the vocalizations of infants and young children, and determination muddied by the fact that adults often attempt to over interpret infant vocalizations (Welch, 1994). …

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.