Just noticeable differences in sound intensity of piano tones in non-musicians and experienced pianists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in sound intensity are important components of piano performance. Previous research in this area has largely focused on perception of changes in pitch and timing, with little investigation of sound intensity. The present study used Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) technology to algorithmically control the key velocity, and thereby sound intensity, of consecutive piano tones. Non-musicians ( n = 20) and experienced pianists ( n = 30) played pairs of consecutive piano tones with 0–15 arbitrary units (a.u.) of change in key velocity, indicating whether they perceived the first, second, or neither tone as louder. All participants completed the test with C4, and a subset ( n = 24) with pitches C2 and C6 also. The mean just noticeable difference (JND) ranged from 2.71 to 4.48 a.u., corresponding to 0.68–1.22 dBC on the Yamaha Disklavier used to produce the stimuli. Experienced pianists demonstrated lower JND, which the authors theorize may be linked to listener motivation. When two tones were played with the same key velocity, participants tended to perceive the first tone as louder. The authors discuss a number of factors that may be relevant considerations for application of the findings in music and psychoacoustics research. These findings hold insight for music performance researchers, psychoacoustics researchers, and pedagogues.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".