The <i>Tonnetz</i> at First Sight: Cognitive Issues of Human–Computer Interaction with Pitch Spaces
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pitch spaces allow pitch relations to be expressed through geometrical representations for many different purposes. The Tonnetz is a well-known pitch space in the field of music theory; equivalent representations have been described in the field of cognitive science, especially Krumhansl's model of perceived triadic distance. Despite her empirical approach, we know very little about the way people interact, cognitively speaking, with Tonnetz-based computational platforms involving multimodal stimuli. Our study has approached this issue by means of empirical experimentation for the first time. A total of 88 participants, with varying backgrounds in music and mathematics, were asked to interact with a Tonnetz interface; they did not have prior knowledge of this pitch space. Results of our experiment confirmed our main hypotheses. On the one hand, strong skills in music theory are needed to partially grasp the overall structure of the Tonnetz at first sight; this aspect is mainly related to the quality recognition of triads and the detection of shared pitch classes in harmonic motions. On the other hand, the particular geometry of the Tonnetz may bias this understanding when non-functional harmonic sequences are displayed on it.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it