Journal of Experimental Psychology: Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

Human Perception and Performance 0096-1523/97/$3.00

1997, Vol. 23, No. 1, 116-135

Music Performance and the Perception of Key

William Forde Thompson L o l a L. Cudd),

Atkinson College, York University Queen's Univermty

The effect of music performance on perceived key movement was examined. Listeners
judged key movement in sequences presented without performance expression (mechanical)
in Experiment 1 and with performance expression in Experiment 2. Modulation distance
varied. Judgments corresponded to predictions based on the cycle of fifths and toroidal
models of key relatedness, with the highest correspondence for performed versions with the
toroidal model. In Experiment 3, listeners compared mechanical sequences with either
performed sequences or modifications of performed sequences. Modifications preserved
expressive differences between chords, but not between voices. Predictions from Experiments
1 and 2 held only for performed sequences, suggesting that differences between voices are
informative of key movement. Experiment 4 confmned that modifications did not disrupt
musicality. Analyses of performances further suggested a link between performance expres-
sion and key.

In this article we illustrate the effects of music perfor-
mance on the perception of key movement. Music perfor-
mance typically includes systematic variations in timing,
dynamics, articulation, and other components of motor ex-
pression that are linked to compositional structure. We first
review selected research findings related to this topic. We
then describe the construct of musical key and key move-
ment, along with theoretical models of the mental represen-
tation of key relationships. Finally, we report experimental
evidence that performance expression influences the ab-
straction of key relationships in short musical excerpts.
Music Performance
Our experience of music and our ideas about music mainly
derive from listening to performed music . . . . The perfor-
mance of a piece of music represents the overt, auditory
manifestation of the composer's and/or the performer's inten-
tions, ideas, feelings, and whatever is being communicated in
music. It is the direct stimulus to the listener and will pro-
foundly affect.., perceiving and understanding. (Gabriels-
son, 1988, p. 27)
Motivated by an attempt to discover how such musical
communication takes place, current research efforts have
This research was supported by research grants from the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Technical
assistance was provided by Alistair Mackinnell, Don Sinclair, and
Alex Wiebe. We are grateful to Yuval Fichman for performing the
musical excerpts, to Shulamit Mor for assisting in the selection and
harmonization of the musical materials, and to Gabriel Radvansky
and Murry Stainton for helpful suggestions.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
William Forde Thompson, Department of Psychology, Atkinson
College, York University, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ontario,
Canada M3J IP3, or to Lola L. Cuddy, Department of Psychology,
Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6.
116
been directed at a detailed description of the characteristics
of skilled performance. It is well documented that when a
skilled performer attempts to interpret a piece of music, he
or she will introduce discrepancies from the printed score.
Analyses of recorded performances have yielded statistical
descriptions of discrepancies in timing, intensity, pitch, and
timbre (for overviews, see Gabrielsson, 1987; Sloboda,
1988; Sundberg, 1983). These discrepancies are referred to
as "performance variation" or "performance expression."
Performance variation may sometimes reflect muscular
constraints, but it also reflects musical knowledge embed-
ded in the motor programs for music performance. Exami-
nation of the role of such knowledge in motor programs
suggests that performance expression is systematic, inten-
tional, and rule based (Clarke, 1985; Palmer, 1988, 1989;
Repp, 1992; Sloboda, 1985; Todd, 1985). Expressive ac-
tions may be used to emphasize or convey certain aspects of
musical structure and meaning over others.
For example, performance expression is related to the
segmentation of music into units called phrases (Clarke,
1982, 1985; Palmer, 1989; Todd, 1985). As a phrase bound-
ary is approached, the performed duration of events in-
creases beyond the notated duration; the loudness also may
decrease. Phrases may be separated by pauses. Moreover, a
performer is capable of adopting alternative interpretations
of the phrasing of a piece of music and of adjusting perfor-
mance expression to match the intended interpretation
(Palmer, 1992).
A second example is the presence of timing asynchronies
in performance expression when the musical notation indi-
cates simultaneity (Palmer, 1988; Rasch, 1979). These
asynchronies tend to be applied to the notes designated by
the performer as the melody. Playing each note of the
melody slightly ahead of its accompaniment is consistent
with the principles outlined by Bregman and colleagues
regarding auditory segregation and distinctiveness (e.g.,
 PERFORMANCE AND KEY PERCEPTION
Bregman, 1990, pp. 492, 496). Performance expression
treats the melody as a distinctive voice among the other
voices of the music.
Much less is known about whether performance expres-
sion elucidates the pitch structure of Western tonal music--
more specifically, whether performance expression conveys
information about the stractural relationships among notes,
chords, and keys in a piece of music. Of particular relevance
to the current research is that there is no evidence available
on the question of whether listeners' perception of key is
facilitated (or possibly masked) by performance expression.
Theory and data strongly argue that perceptual sensitivity to
key and key relationships, in conjunction with other levels
of pitch structure, contributes to the encoding, representa-
tion, and recall of musical materials (Krumhansl, 1990, and
references cited therein). Thus, in light of Gabrielsson's
(1988) quote, it is important to determine whether perfor-
mance expression may influence the perception of key.
In this research we examined the influence of perfor-
mance expression on the perception of key movement.
Before describing the experimental approach, we review
some basic musical terms and concepts.
Perception of Key and Key Relationships
The perception of key and key movement in Western
tonal music involves sensitivity to a complex system of
relationships among tones and chords. Traditional music
theory offers detailed descriptions of these relationships
(e.g., Piston, 1941/1962), and an extensive body of empir-
ical research has scrutinized, verified, and in some aspects
refined and elaborated on the descriptions of music theory
(for reviews, see Butler, 1992; Dowling & Harwood, 1986;
Handel, 1989; Krumhansl, 1990). Research suggests that
listeners over a wide spectrum of age, musical training, and
musical exposure have acquired rich mental representations
of the underlying pitch relationships characteristic of the
Western idiom.
The representations guiding the perception of musical key
may be described in terms of two principal structures: one
that references relationships among tones within a key and
one that references relationships among keys. These struc-
tures are outlined in turn.
First, a musical key involves a specified collection of
tones (sometimes called pitch classes) and a hierarchy of
functions of tones. The most familiar collection outlining a
musical key is the major scale: doh-re-mi-fah-sol-la-ti.
Within this collection, or scale, the first note, doh, is said to
have the most important function. It is called the tonic, tonal
center, or key note. Other pitches have subordinate func-
tions to the tonic; the next most important is the fifth note of
the scale, sol, the next is the third note mi, followed by the
remaining scale notes.
The collection itself is a subset of the set of tones obtained
by dividing the octave, or frequency ratio 2:1, into 12 equal
logarithmic steps. Adjacent steps form the interval called a
semitone, and a succession of 12 semitones is called the
chromatic scale. For the major scale, the successive steps
117
are 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, and 1 semitones. The tonic, or key note,
of a major scale may be any one of the 12 chromatic tones;
the remaining tones are determined by the successive steps
of this interval pattern of semitones. Thus, for any given
major scale, some of the tones of the chromatic scale do not
appear. These tones, called nonscale tones, are least impor-
tant in the hierarchy of tone functions for the key. (They
may occur infrequently in actual music, but their function is
normally subordinate to the scale tones.)
A similar hierarchical structure applies to the minor keys
in the Western idiom. In particular, the tones of both major
and minor keys are organized about a focal tone--the ton-
ic--which has a special status. The role of the tonic has
been likened to that of a cognitive referent, or prototypic
element: "These elements are given priority in processing,
are most stable in memory, and are important for linguistic
description" (Knm~ansl, 1990, p. 18).
The second principal structure deals with the relationships
among the 24 keys. Each of the 12 chromatic tones may
function as the tonic of a key. Thus, there are 24 possible
keys: 12 major and 12 minor. A traditional description of
the relationships among keys is the cycle of fifths shown in
Figure 1. The figure shows the relationships among major
keys; a similar cycle represents relationships among minor
keys. The note names on the cycle, C, G, D, and so on, refer
to the tonic notes of the 12 major keys. The distance
between keys is defmed by the number of steps on the cycle.
Thus, the key of C is most closely related (least distant) to
the neighboring keys of G and F, one step clockwise and
one step counterclockwise on the cycle, respectively. It is
most distant from the key of F sharp, six steps around the
BI'/AD C
EI'/D#L mV?A
AVG# = E
D /C# B
Gb/F#
CYCLE OF FIFTHS
Figure 1. The cycle of fifths model of key relationships. The
figure shows the relationships among major keys; the note names
refer to the key notes of the 12 major keys.
118 THOMPSON AND CUDDY
cycle. Neighboring keys share all but one scale tone of their
respective major scales; the number of tones shared between
keys decreases as the distance in steps between keys
increases.
Figure 1 also shows roman numeral codes for selected
keynotes with respect to the key of C. The roman numeral
code is a traditional description of the position of the key
note within the scale of C. Thus, the code for G is V,
meaning that G is the fifth note of the scale of C; the code
for D is II, meaning that D is the second note of the scale of
C, and so on. The code for F sharp is IV#; the note F sharp
does not occur in the scale of C, so the code indicates that
the key note is a semitone above the fourth note of the scale
of C. Roman numeral codes are used to describe the stim-
ulus sequences in the current experiments.
In 1982, Krumhansl and Kessler produced an empirically
derived spatial map of the relationships among all 24 major
and minor keys. The mapping preserved the cycle of fifths
(see Figure 1) but also quantified the relation between major
and minor keys. Derivation of the map involved an empir-
ical strategy called the probe-tone technique (Krumhansl &
Shepard, 1979) adapted for use with a variety of musical
contexts (Krumhansl & Kessler, 1982). The technique in-
volved the presentation of a context followed by one of the
12 tones of the chromatic scale. The listener rated each
probe tone for goodness of fit with the context. The set of 12
ratings, one for each probe tone, was called the probe-tone
profile for that context.
For both major and minor keys, two types of context
produced probe-tone profiles that were highly intercorre-
lated. These contexts were chords consisting of the first,
third, and fifth tones of the scale, called tonic triads, and
chord progressions, called cadences. The profiles corre-
sponded closely to the organization of the tonal hierarchy
described by traditional music theory: The highest ratings
were assigned to the tonic, the next highest were assigned to
the other two notes of the tonic triad, the next highest were
assigned to the remaining four notes of the scale, and the
lowest ratings were assigned to the five nonscale notes. The
profiles for the major-key contexts were averaged to form
the standardized profile for the major key, and the profiles
for the minor-key contexts were averaged to form the stan-
dardized profile for the minor key.
A standardized profile for each of the 24 major and minor
keys was constructed, and a matrix of correlations among all
24 keys was obtained. Multidimensional scaling was ap-
plied to the intercorrelation matrix. The intent was to pro-
vide a low-dimensional space, or map, in which geometric
distances between keynotes reflected perceptual distances.
The result was a four-dimensional solution. Two dimen-
sions accounted for relationships according to the cycle of
fifths. The other two dimensions accounted for the relation-
ships between major and minor keys; this pattern of rela-
tionships also was circular and was termed the cycle of
thirds. The mathematical description of the four-
dimensional space is a torus.
It is possible to illustrate the torus in two dimensions by
plotting the angular locations on both the cycle of fifths and
the cycle of thirds. This configuration is shown as a reet-
angle in Figure 2. (Note that in Figure 2, the axes represent
angular measures around a circle; thus, the top and bottom
edges of the rectangle are identified, as are the fight and left
edges.)
The two models--the cycle of fifths and the toroidal
model--provide different measures of key distance. The
cycle of fifths measures the distance between keys in terms
of the number of steps separating the keys on the cycle,
reflecting the number of scale tones shared between the
keys. The toroidal model measures the distance between
keys, not merely in terms of the number of shared scale
tones but also in terms of the degree of correspondence
between the tonal hierarchies of keys. That is, the quantifi-
cation of distance between keys on the torus takes into
account the degree to which keys share structurally impor-
tant scale tones. We examine and compare both measures of
key distance in the analyses of our data.
Performance and the Perception of Key
To our knowledge, no study has identified an influence by
performance variation on the perception of key movement.
However, results of studies of performance expression have
established strong links between performance variation and
levels of pitch structure other than key (Palmer, 1988,
1989); still other evidence, cited next, suggests a direct link
between music performance and key structure. In studies in
which performance expression was not used, the role of key
structure in musical pitch processing has been clearly es-
tablished (e.g., Bartlett & Dowling, 1980; Cohen, 1991;
Cuddy, Cohen, & Mewhort, 1981; Cuddy & Thompson,
1992; Krumhansl & Kessler, 1982; Thompson, 1993;
Thompson & Cuddy, 1989, 1992). In view of this research,
it seems likely that performance expression can influence
the perception of key movement, and it was the aim of our
research to identify and study this influence.
Results of previous studies of music performance have
suggested that knowledge of pitch structure is embodied in
performance variation. Performers' articulation of the me-
lodic line already has been mentioned: Palmer (1989) ex-
amined chord asynchronies, when voices were notated as
simultaneous, for performances of Mozart's Sonata in A
Major, K. 331. Notes of the melodic line preceded other
voices by an average of 20 ms, suggesting that chord
asynchronies were used to signal the performers' identifi-
cation of the melody.
Research by Palmer and van de Sande (1993) suggests
that k e y structure is one of the levels of pitch structure
involved in the motor programs for music performance. The
approach by Palmer and van de Sande (1993) was to exam-
ine errors in performance rather than intended expressive
actions. Performance errors were coded in terms of the level
of pitch strneture implicated. Errors involving one note were
coded as single-note units, and errors involving multiple
simultaneous notes were coded as chord units. Errors in
single-note units occurred most often for polyphonic music
(containing strong within-voice associations), and errors in
 PERFORMANCE AND KEY PERCEPTION 119

C# A F [

f c# a f

Ab E C

a e c
!

b
E B G Eb

b
e b g

F# D B

m
bb f# d
.
, C# ,A F

Angular Displacement - Cycle of Fifths

Figure 2. The toroidal model of key relationships. The two axes represent angular measures
around a circle; thus, the top and bottom edges of the rectangle represent equivalent positions, and
the fight and left edges represent equivalent positions. Adapted from 'q'racing the Dynamic Changes
in Perceived Tonal Organization in a Spatial Representation of Musical Keys," by C. M. Krumhansl
and E. Kessler, 1982, Psychological Review, 89, p. 346. Copyright 1982 by the American Psycho-
logical Association.

chord units occurred most often for homophonic music
(containing strong across-voice associations). For both
polyphonic and homophonic music, diatonic (same-key)
errors were more common than nondiatonic (different-key)
errors. These fmdings suggest that motor programs for
music performance reflect knowledge of multiple levels of
pitch structure: voices, chords, and keys.
In addition to the aforementioned work, performance
expression and key structure have been linked on theoretical
grounds. The performance principles of "melodic charge"
and "harmonic charge," proposed by Sundberg, Fryden, and
Askenfelt (1983), include relating the loudness and duration
of notes and chords, respectively, to their tonal stability
within the current key. Research has shown that computer-
delivered melodies were judged to be more musical when
such principles were applied than when they were not
(Thompson, Sundberg, Friberg, & Fryden, 1989). However,
although Thompson et al. (1989) suggested that the princi-
ples reflect "a performer's way of signalling his or her
sensitivity to key relationships" (p. 69), their investigations
did not address whether performance expression influences
perceptual judgments of key.
Results of several studies attest to the psychological va-
lidity of key structure for musical excerpts presented with-
out performance variation. One procedure concerns listen-
ers' ability to discern whether an excerpt contains a single,
unambiguously specified key or whether the excerpt con-
talns movement from one key to another, called a key
modulation. Using the probe-tone technique, Krumhansl
and Kessler (1982) were able to track the changing sense of
key for a number of modulating chord sequences. In a series
of studies, Thompson and Cuddy (1989, 1992) and Cuddy
and Thompson (1992) demonstrated listeners' sensitivity to
the direction and distance of modulation in excerpts from
Bach chorales. Listeners were able to judge the direction
and distance of modulations of 0, 1, or 2 steps on the cycle
of fifths in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions.
Thompson (1993) extended the procedure to the study of
harmonized versions of melodies composed by Hindemith
(1968) for modulations of 0, 2, 4, and 6 steps clockwise on
the cycle of fifths. Listeners' judgments of perceived key
movement discriminated between nonmodulating and mod-
ulating sequences and also showed some ability to discrim-
inate differences in the distance of modulation for modulat-
ing sequences.
In this investigation, we examined whether performance
expression would influence judgments of key movement. In
Experiments 1 and 2, judgments of key movement were
compared for harmonized sequences presented mechani-
caUy, that is, without performance expression (Experiment
1) and sequences presented with performance expression
(Experiment 2). To anticipate the results, we found that
listeners' judgments corresponded more closely to theoret-
ical predictions when sequences were performed than when
sequences were presented mechanically. These results
guided two additional experiments and an analysis of per-
formance expression in the music performances.
120 THOMPSON AND CUDDY
Experiment 1
In Experiment 1, we examined judgments of key move-
ment in the harmonized sequences used by Thompson
(1993). Specifically, the experiment represented an attempt
to replicate the results of the third experiment in Thomp-
son's study with a different experimental paradigm. Thomp-
son presented listeners with a single harmonized sequence
on each trial and instructed them to rate the psychological
distance between the first and final keys on a 7-point scale.
As predicted by the cycle of fifths model of key relation-
ships, mean ratings were lowest for nonmodulation, higher
for modulation to II, and higher still for modulation to HI.
Surprisingly, however, the mean rating for modulation to
IV# (6 steps on the cycle of fifths) was lower (but not
significantly) than mean ratings for modulation to III (4
steps). This finding contrasts with predictions by the cycle
of fifths model and demonstrates that the perception of key
distance is not entirely determined by the extent to which
the keys have overlapping scale notes.
Although Thompson (1993) found that mean ratings were
not significantly different for modulation to III and modu-
lation to IV#, it is possible that listeners would have dis-
criminated between these modulation types if they had been
asked directly to compare these two types of key movement.
Thus, in Experiment 1 listeners were presented with a pair
of sequences on each trial and were instructed to judge the
relative distance o f key movement in the two sequences
(i.e., to judge which sequence contained the greater dis-
tance). Therefore, Experiment 1 offered a more direct as-
sessment of the listeners' ability to discriminate between
two different distances of key movement.
Similar to the procedure adopted by Thompson (1993),
sequences were presented with no expressive variation in
timing and loudness, a manner of presentation that is re-
ferred to here as mechanical. In the musical instrument
digital interface (MIDI) files that generated the sequences,
durational values conformed strictly to the notated values of
the sequences, and all keypress velocity values, the MIDI
analog of loudness, were the same (64 units on a scale
ranging from 1 to 127). ~ Thus, as well as a test of the
reliability of the earlier findings, the current experiment
provided a baseline against which the influence o f expres-
sive variation in performance (Experiment 2) could be
evaluated.
Method
Listeners
Ten adult listeners from the York University student population
participated in the experiment. All listeners reported normal hear-
ing. Listeners were musically trained, having a minimum of 5
years of formal training on a musical instrument and a maximum
of more than 10 years of formal musical training. Listeners were
naive, however, with respect to the purpose of the experiment;
moreover, none were familiar with the relevant experimental lit-
erature on the perception and quantification of key distances.
Listeners were paid $7 for their participation in the experiment.
Sequences
Figure 3 displays the eight harmonized sequences used by
Thompson (1993). They were based on harmonization exercises
taken from a textbook written by Hindemith (1968, pp. 105, 109).
Each exercise required the harmonization of a melodic sequence of
four measures (two phrases); the exercise specified whether har-
monization must involve nonmodulation or a modulation to a
particular key.
Harmonizations of melodic sequences were composed by a
musician with more than 10 years of formal training in music
performance and Western tonal composition. We and one other
highly trained musician checked that the following criteria were
satisfied: (a) All harmonizations ended on the key specified by
Hindemith (1968) for the exercise; (b) conventions of traditional
harmonic practice were obeyed; (c) modulation in a modulating
sequence was initiated in the third measure; and (d) all sequences
ended with a conventional V-I cadence in the final key of the
sequence.
The eight sequences represented two sets of four sequences
each: Set A and Set B. Within each set, the first two bars of each
sequence were identical. In the third and fourth bars, the four
sequences were identical in rhythm and similar in the contour of
the soprano voice, but they differed in chord progression and key
structure. The four sequences of each set represented four types of
modulation: (a) nonmodulating (nonmodulation); (b) modulating
two steps on the cycle of fifths to the key of the supertonic
(modulation to II); (c) modulating four steps on the cycle of fifths
to the key of the mediant (modulation to IR); and (d) modulating
six steps on the cycle of fifths to the key of the sharpened
subdominant (modulation to IV#).
Apparatus and Stimuli
MIDI files for the eight sequences were created with Composer
software (Professional Composer; Mark of the Unicorn, Cam-
bridge, MA). The onset-to-onset timing and tone durations were
coded precisely as notated. The loudness for each tone was gen-
erated by setting the MIDI keypress velocity at 64. (Velocity
values are scaled from 1 to 127.) The tempo of the sequences was
120 quarter-tone beats per minute, or 0.5 s/beat. A Macintosh
SE-30 computer, using customized software, controlled the pre-
sentation of sequences to fisteners. The computer was connected
by a MIDI interface to a Roland U-20 multitimbral keyboard with
equal temperament tuning. Sequence tones were the sampled piano
sounds of the Roland U-20. They were delivered to listeners
through Sennheiser HD-480 headphones.
Each experimental trial consisted of a pair of sequences sepa-
rated by a 1-s pause. After each trial, a response cue was displayed
on the computer monitor, and responses were entered directly into
the computer. Trials were self-paced.
Design and Procedure
For each sequence set, 12 different conditions were created, as
shown in the left side of Table 1. The 12 conditions consisted of
six types of sequence pairs and two orders of each pair. The six
1 A musical instrument digital interface (MIDI) is a device used
to record, edit, or play music under computer control. A MIDI file
is a file of musical information that may be stored on computer.
The information contained in a standard MIDI file includes pitch,
duration, keypress velocity, attack time, and release time.
 PERFORMANCE AND KEY PERCEPTION 121

Figure 3. Harmonized sequences used as stimuli in the experiments (Set A and Set B). The type
of key movement is listed above each sequence.
122 THOMPSON AND CUDDY
types of sequence pairs represented all possible combinations of
the four different types of modulation within a given set. The two
orders represented, for each pair, the order in which the two types
of modulation were presented. For Order 1, the modulation involv-
ing fewer steps on the cycle of fifths was presented first; for Order
2, the modulation involving more steps on the cycle of fifths was
presented first.
The 12 conditions for Set A and 12 conditions for Set B yielded
a total of 24 trials. The order of the 24 trials was randomly and
independently determined for each listener. Listeners were asked
to compare the distance of key movement of the two sequences of
each pair. First, they were to judge which sequence, the first or the
second presented, involved the greater distance. Second, they were
asked to compare the distances involved in the two sequences, and
assign a rating from 1 (distances are similar) to 3 (distances are
very different). Practice trials, selected randomly from the set of
experimental trials, were provided to acquaint the listeners with the
task. During the practice trials, each listener adjusted the overall
loudness to a comfortable listening level (about 65-70 dB SPL).
Listeners were allowed to quit the practice trials and begin the
experimental trials at any time. Thus, the number of practice trials
varied from participant to participant. Listeners were not given
feedback on their judgments either for the practice or experimental
trials.
Results and Discussion
For purposes of data analysis, the two judgments pro-
vided by each listener on each trial were transformed to a
single rating ranging from 1 to 6. The rating scale reflected
the perceived extent of key movement of the second se-
quence of each pair relative to the fLrst. On the transformed
scale, a rating of 1 corresponded to the judgment that the
perceived movement of the second sequence was much less
than the first, and a rating of 6 corresponded to the judgment
that the perceived movement of the second sequence was
much greater than the first. Thus, the listener's judgment
that the fn'st sequence moved farther than the second fol-
lowed by ratings of 1, 2, or 3 became the ratings 3, 2, and
Table 1
Different Conditions for Each Sequence Set Consisting of Six Types of Sequence Pairs and Two Orders for Each Type
Order of presentation
Type of
sequence pair First Second
Order 1: Fewer lst-greater 2nd
1 Nonmod MOd II
2 Nonmod MOd 11I
3 Nonmod Mod IV#
4 Mod II MOd HI
5 Mod II Mod IV#
6 Mod HI MOd IV#
Order 2: Greater 1st-fewer 2nd
1 MOd II Nonmod
2 Mod HI Nonmod
3 Mod IV# Nonmod
4 Mod HI MOd H
5 Mod IV# MOd II
6 Mod IV# Mod HI
Note. Standardized predictions of perceived difference in key movement between members of each pair are based on the cycle of fifths
and toroidal models. Nonmod = nonmodulation; MOd = modulation.
1, respectively, of the transformed scale. The judgment that
the second sequence moved farther than the first followed
by ratings of 1, 2, or 3 became the ratings 4, 5, and 6 of the
transformed scale. Ratings were subjected to an analysis of
variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on three vari-
ables: sequence set with two levels (Sets A and B), sequence
pair with six levels (see Table 1), and order within the
sequence pair with two levels (see Table 1).
No reliable effects attributable to sequence set were ob-
tained, so the results are presented collapsed across se-
quence set. Figure 4 displays mean ratings for the six types
of sequence pairs and for the two orders of presentation
within pairs. For five of the six types of sequence pairs,
ratings were higher if the key movement in the second
sequence involved a greater number of steps than the first
sequence on the cycle of fifths. The mean rating for pairs in
which the second sequence involved a greater number of
steps (Order 1) was 4.33, whereas the mean rating for pairs
in which the first sequence involved a greater number of
steps (Order 2) was 3.05. There was a main effect of order
on ratings, F(1, 19) = 49.14, p < .0005, reflecting an
overall ability of listeners to discriminate different distances
of key movement.
For one type of sequence pair (modulation III with mod-
ulation IV#) mean ratings were opposite to predictions
based on the cycle of fifths but consistent with the results of
Thompson (1993) for these modulation types. More gener-
ally, listeners discriminated key movements better for some
sequence pairs than for others. This result led to a signifi-
cant interaction between order and sequence pair, F(5,
45) = 10.88,p < .0001. We examined this interaction using
six planned comparisons.
For each type of sequence pair, mean ratings were com-
pared for both orders in which the two sequences were
presented. The ability to discriminate distance of key move-
ment for a given pair of sequence types was demonstrated if
mean ratings were significantly different for the two orders
Standardized predictions
Cycle of fifths Toroid
0.35 1.07
1.04 1.17
1.73 1.59
0.35 0.10
1.04 0.52
0.35 0.42
-0.35 - 1.07
- 1.04 - 1.17
- 1.73 - 1.59
-0.35 -0.10
-1.04 -0.52
-0.35 -0.42
 PERFORMANCE AND KEY PERCEPTION
Figure 4. Mean ratings for the six types of mechanically pre-
sented sequence pairs, and for the two presentation orders col-
lapsed across the two sequence sets. Nonmod = nonmodulation;
Mod = modulation; solid bar = Order 1; hatched bar = Order 2.
of presentation. In general, listeners were better able to
discriminate between nonmodulating and modulating se-
quences than between two different types of modulating
sequences.
Significant differences were found between orders of
presentation for four types of sequence pairs (the first four
listed in Table 1): nonmodulating with modulating to II (2
steps on the cycle of fifths), F(1, 9) = 47.21, p < .0001;
nonmodulating with modulating to HI (4 steps), F(1, 9) =
42.51, p < .0001; noumodulating with modulating to IV# (6
steps), F(1, 9) = 47.09, p < .0001; and modulating to II (2
steps) with modulating to III (4 steps), F(1, 9) = 81.00, p <
.0001. Significant differences were not obtained for the
remaining two types of sequence pairs: modulating to II (2
steps) with modulating to IV# (6 steps), F(1, 9) = 1.42, p >
.25, and modulating to III (4 steps) with modulating to IV#
(6 steps), F(1, 9) = 0.82, p > .35.
The pattern of results within the interaction is contrary to
both the cycle of fifths and the toroidal model of key
relationships. For both, greater distance in key movement
was associated with a modulation to IV# (6 steps) than
either a modulation to II (2 steps) or a modulation to III (4
steps). However, the pattern of ratings is consistent with
results reported by Thompson (1993, Experiment 3). In that
study, listeners rated the perceived distance of modulation
123
for individual sequences. In spite of differences in task
demands, listeners in both studies did not perceive a mod-
ulation to IV# to involve a significantly greater distance of
key movement than a modulation to HI.
The pattern of results reported here could be predicted
extremely well from the results reported by Thompson
(1993, Experiment 3). A set of predicted ratings for the
current experiment was derived from the mean ratings of
individual sequences reported by Thompson. For each type
of sequence pair, the predicted rating was taken as the mean
rating for the first modulation type minus the mean rating
for the second modulation type. This set of predicted ratings
then was compared with mean ratings obtained in Experi-
ment 1. The correlation between the predicted and the
current ratings was .97 (df = 10, p < .001). This extremely
close correspondence between the current results and those
reported by Thompson (1993) provides strong support for
the validity of the response procedure used in Experiment 1.
Correlation and multiple regression were next conducted
to explore further the perceptual validity of the cycle of
fifths model of key relationships and to compare this model
with the toroidal model of key relationships developed by
Krnmhansl and Kessler (1982). Predicted ratings of key
distances for each of the 12 conditions were obtained for
both the cycle of fifths model and the toroidal model.
Predictions for the cycle of fifths model were based on the
difference in the number of steps of key movement between
the two sequences of each pair. Predictions for the toroidal
model were based on the difference in Euclidian distances
traversed between the two sequences of each pair. Euclidian
distances were calculated using the coordinates of keys on
the toms listed by Krumhansl (1990). Standardized values
of the predictions for both models are shown in Table 1.
Examination of Table 1 reveals some of the differences
between these two models of key distance. For the cycle of
fifths model, theoretical distances are linearly related to the
number of steps traversed on the cycle of fifths. For exam-
ple, modulations from C major to D major (2 steps), C
major to E major (4 steps), and C major to F-sharp major (6
steps) represent equal increases in distance on the cycle of
fifths. For the toroidal model, however, theoretical distances
are not linearly related to the number of steps traversed on
the cycle of fifths. For example, modulations from C major
to D major (2 steps) and from C major to E major (4 steps)
represent similar distances on the toroidal model, and they
represent a shorter distance than the distance from C major
to F-sharp major (6 steps). (Note that projection of the toms
as two-dimensional [see Figure 2] introduces some distor-
tion of the distances; the predicted values in Table 1 were
not obtained from Figure 2 but were calculated as the
Euclidian distance in four dimensions.)
The mean ratings for the 12 conditions were significantly
correlated with the predictions of both models. The corre-
lation between mean ratings and predictions based on the
cycle of fifths model was .78 (df = 10, p < .01). The
correlation between mean ratings and predictions based on
the toroidal model was .87 (df = 10, p < .001).
Multiple regression then was conducted to assess the
relative predictive power of the two models. Both predictors
124 THOMPSON AND CUDDY
were entered, and the significance of the beta weight (re-
gression coefficient) for each predictor was tested. The beta
weight for the cycle of fifths model, - . 1 1 , was not signif-
icantly different from zero. The beta weight for the toroidal
model, .98, was significant, t(9) = 2.4, p < .05. This result
suggests that the toroidal model had predictive power sig-
nificantly beyond what could be explained by the cycle of
fifths model.
The results provide support for the toroidal model over
the cycle of fifths model as a perceptual model of key
relationships. Both models, however, make certain predic-
tions that are incompatible with the experimental results. As
noted earlier, both models predict that a modulation to IV#
(6 steps on the cycle of fifths) should induce greater per-
ceived key movement than a modulation to III (4 steps).
However, listeners were unable to discriminate between the
key movement involved in these two types of sequences.
Experiment 2
Experiment 1 established that listeners were able to per-
ceive differences in key movement for four of the six types
of sequence pairs tested. However, modulation to IV# was
not perceived to involve a greater distance than either mod-
ulation to II or modulation to IH. This finding corroborates
the results reported by Thompson (1993, Experiment 3) and
raises questions about the models of key relationships
tested.
Experiment 2 replicated the procedure of Experiment 1,
with one important difference: The MIDI files for the se-
quences were recorded from the keyboard performance of a
highly trained musician. The second experiment, in con-
junction with the first, addressed the question whether the
expressive actions o f a performer may influence the percep-
tion of key movement. In particular, we examined the
possibility that when performance expression is present,
listeners' judgments may correspond more closely to theo-
retical representations of key distance.
Method
Listeners
Ten adult listeners from the York University community, fitting
the same description as the listeners in Experiment 1, participated
in this experiment. None had participated in Experiment 1.
Sequences
The sequences were the same as those used in Experiment 1 (see
Figure 3).
Apparatus and Stimuli
The apparatus was the same as that used in Experiment 1. The
sequences were performed on the Roland U-20 keyboard by a
professional pianist and recorded as MIDI files on computer. The
pianist was asked to produce a musically acceptable performance
of each sequence and was allowed to produce as many versions as
he wished until he was reasonably satisfied. The performer also
was given the opportunity to edit the keypress velocity, onset, and
duration information in the MIDI files. These minor adjustments
ensured that the final version was perfectly consistent with the
performer's intentions. For example, if the performer felt that a
specific note was too loud, he could reduce the MIDI velocity
value for that note. (Playing on the Roland keyboard did not
always result in a performance that was satisfactory to the per-
former. The Roland keyboard is touch sensitive, but it is not
weighted the same as an acoustic piano keyboard.) The pianist did
not know the precise aims of the research.
In a final step, the tempo of performed sequences was adjusted
so that it was perceptually equivalent to the tempo of sequences
presented in Experiment 1. This step was achieved by setting the
tempo of each performed sequence such that the duration of the
fLrSt half of the performed sequence was equal to the duration of
the first half of the mechanical version. Because performed se-
quences involved a dtardando (i.e., a slowing of tempo) at the end
of the second phrase, the total duration of performed sequences
ranged from 1 to 3 s longer than the total duration of mechanical
sequences. For each sequencel we and one other musically trained
listener verified that the adjustment resulted in perceived equiva-
lence of tempo between the mechanical and performed versions.
Description of Performance Expression
The MIDI files of performed sequences were analyzed to check
that the timing and loudness patterns were consistent with expres-
sive patterns typically observed in music performances (e.g., see
Palmer, 1989). More extensive analyses of the MIDI files, moti-
vated by the experimental results, are presented later. Two types of
expressive variation were examined in the initial MIDI analysis:
expressive differences between chords and melodic emphasis.
Expressive differences between chords describe overall patterns of
timing (accelerando and ritardando) and loudness (crescendo and
diminuendo). Melodic emphasis may occur through timing or
loudness.
Expressivedifferencesbetweenchords. Within each sequence,
timing and loudness data were collected for 14 chord locations,
referenced by bar and beat numbers. Each sequence consisted of
four bars (separated by bar lines), and each bar consisted of four
(quarter-note) beats. Chords occurred on Beats 1-7 (Bars 1 and 2)
and on Beats 9-15 (Bars 3 and 4). Bars 1 and 2 are referred to as
Phrase 1, and Bars 3 and 4 are referred to as Phrase 2.
The expressive use of timing for the 14 chords was assessed with
reference to the interonset interval (IOI) ratio. The IOI ratio is the
ratio between the IOIs in performed sequences and the correspond-
ing IOIs in mechanical sequences. The IOI between successive
chords was calculated as the time interval between the average
onset time for voices in the current chord and the average onset
time for voices in the subsequent chord, disregarding notes not
occurring on Beats 1-7 or Beats 9-15. Because no IOI can be
calculated for the last chord of a sequence, the IOI ratio for this
chord was replaced with the ratio between the average duration of
voices in performed sequences and the average duration of voices
in mechanical sequences.
Figure 5 plots the IOI ratio for the 14 chords in the sequences
averaged across sequences. The pattern of IOI ratio values indi-
cates a decrease in tempo at the end of each phrase, particularly at
the end of the second phrase. This pattern of timing, referred to as
a ritardando, typically is used to convey a sense of closure at
phrase boundaries.
Examination of IOI ratio values in individual sequences indi-
cated that the use of timing was consistent among the eight
 PERFORMANCE AND KEY PERCEPTION 125

1.4" loudness of each chord was approximated as the average keypress

velocity for all voices in the chord. Notes not occurring on Beats
1-7 or Beats 9-15 were excluded from these calculations.
O 1.3 Figure 6 plots the average keypress velocity for the 14 chords in
the sequences averaged across all sequences. Most evident from
Figure 6 is a general tendency to shape each phrase with a
m crescendo (i.e., an increase in loudness) followed by a diminuendo
1.2

,//
(i.e., a decrease in loudness). Compared with the initial phrase, the
final phrase involved a greater range of loudness values. This
0
m 1.1
increased range in loudness may have helped to establish a stron-
ger sense of closure in the final phrase.
Examination of keypress velocity values in each sequence indi-
cated a moderate consistency in the use of loudness among the

al 1.0
9)
:!
0.9 I ' | ' J ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' l ' | ' l ' l ' l ' l ' l "
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phrm 1 ~rm
Beat
Figure 5. Mean interonset interval (IOI) ratio of chords occur-
ring on each quarter-note beat in the four bars averaged across type
of modulation and sequence set. Chords occur on Beats 1-7
(Phrase 1) and on Beats 9-15 (Phrase 2).
performed sequences. The set of 14 IOI ratio values for each
sequence was highly correlated with the set of IOI ratio values for
all other sequences. The 28 correlation values in the complete
intercorrelation matrix were all significant at the .01 level (df =
12). Correlation coefficients ranged from .75 to .97, and the
average correlation between sequences was .87.
The expressive use of loudness for the 14 chords was measured
by keypress velocity. Keypress velocity is strongly related to
perceived loudness and is measured on a scale from 1 to 127. The
eight performed sequences. Twenty-five of the 28 correlation
values in the intercorrelation matrix were significant at the .05
level (df = 12). Correlation coefficients ranged from .18 to .91,
and the average correlation between sequences was .60.
2
Melodic emphasis. The soprano voice or melody typically is
emphasized through both timing (melodic asynchrony) and loud-
ness. In general, notes in the soprano voice tend to occur before (or
"lead") other notes at the same notated position (Palmer, 1989).
This feature of musical performance, known as melodic asyn-
chrony, also was found in the current performances. Melodic
asynchrony was examined by calculating the difference between
the onset of each note in the soprano voice and the average onset
for other voices at the same notated position. On average, the
soprano voice was played 16.67 ms before other voices, which was
significantly different from zero, t(l14) = 11.37, p < .0001.
Loudness also is typically used to emphasize the melodic line
(Palmer, 1989). Consistent with this feature of musical perfor-
mance, keypress velocities in the current performances were in-
deed greater in the soprano voice than in other voices. The average
keypress velocity of notes in the soprano voice was 64.29, whereas
the average keypress velocity of notes in other voices was 43.38,
t(494) = 16.62, p < .0001.

~3

&=
U
~= 60
U
m
0

I
m
Q

0
,Id
C
m
0
| | - | - ! | - i | | J - i . i - | - i o i i i

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phrase I Phrase 2
Beat
Figure 6. Mean keypress velocity of chords occurring on each quarter-note beat in the four bars
averaged across type of modulation and sequence set. Chords occur on Beats 1-7 (Phrase 1) and on
Beats 9-15 (Phrase 2).
126 THOMPSON AND CUDDY
Design and Procedure
The design and procedure were identical to those used in Ex-
periment 1.
Results and Discussion
Judgments again were transformed to ratings on a scale
ranging from 1 to 6. As before, ratings were subjected to an
ANOVA with repeated measures on three variables: se-
quence set with two levels (Sets A and B), sequence pair
with six levels, and order within sequence pair with two
levels.
No reliable effects attributable to sequence set were ob-
tained, so the results are presented collapsed across se-
quence set. Figure 7 displays mean ratings for the six types
of sequence pairs and for the two orders of presentation
within pairs. As in Experiment 1, there was a main effect of
order of presentation within sequence pairs. The mean rat-
ing for pairs in which the second sequence involved a
greater number of steps on the cycle of fifths was 4.46,
whereas the mean rating for pairs in which the first se-
Figure 7. Mean ratings for the six types of performed sequence
pairs and for the two presentation orders collapsed across the two
sequence sets. Nonmod = nonmodulation; Mod = modulation;
solid bar = Order 1; hatched bar = Order 2.
quence involved a greater number of steps was 2.81, F(1,
9) = 120.86, p < .0001.
As expected, the size of the effect of order depended on
the type of sequence pair. This result led to a significant
interaction between sequence pair and order, F(5, 45) =
8.71, p < .0001, which was examined further using six
planned comparisons.
Significant differences again were found between orders
of presentation for the three types of sequence pairs that
included a nonmodulating sequence (the first three listed in
Table 1): nonmodulating with modulating to II, F(1, 9) =
35.27, p < .0001; nonmodulating with modulating to III,
F(1, 9) = 46.10, p < .0001; and nonmodulating with
modulating to IV#, F(I, 9) = 270.00, p < .0001. The results
for sequence pairs that involved two modulating sequences
were different from the results of Experiment 1. Contrary to
the results of Experiment 1, significant differences were
obtained between orders of presentation for the two types of
sequence pairs that included a modulation to IV#: modulat-
ing to II with modulating to IV#, F(1, 9) = 13.79, p < .01,
and modulating to BI with modulating to IV#, F(1, 9) =
13.85, p < .01. The remaining sequence pair, modulating to
II with modulating to HI, which had yielded a significant
difference between orders of presentation in Experiment 1,
did not yield a significant difference in this experiment, F(I,
9) = 2.37, p > .15 (although the difference was in the same
direction).
This pattern of results corresponds closely to predictions
based on the toroidal model. First, the toroidal model pre-
dicts similar distances for modulation to II (2 steps) and
modulation to liI (4 steps), and listeners indeed did not
significantly discriminate between these modulation types.
Second, both the toroidal model and the cycle of fifths
predict that modulation to IV# (6 steps) involves greater
distance than other modulation types, and listeners did make
this discrimination.
The mean ratings for the 12 conditions were significantly
correlated with the predictions of both the cycle of fifths
model and the toroidal model (see Table 1). The correlation
between mean ratings and predictions based on the cycle of
fifths model was .92 (dr = 10, p < .001). The correlation
between mean ratings and predictions based on the toroidai
model was .98 (dr = 10, p < .001). Multiple regression then
was conducted to assess the relative predictive power of the
two models. The beta weight for the cycle of fifths model,
.10, was not significantly different from zero. The beta
weight for the toroidal model, .89, was significant, t(9) =
5.61, p < .0005. This result indicates that the toroidal model
had predictive power significantly beyond what could be
explained by the cycle of fifths model. In fact, the toroidal
model provided an excellent description of perceived rela-
tionships between keys.
Three statistical analyses of combined data from the two
experiments confirmed that judgments of key movement
were significantly different for performed and mechanical
versions of sequences. First, a mixed-design ANOVA was
conducted, treating the two experiments as a between-
subjects variable (mechanical vs. performed versions).
Within-subjects variables were sequence set with two lev-
 PERFORMANCE AND KEY PERCEPTION
els, sequence pair with six levels, and order within sequence
pair with two levels. As found when results for Experiments
1 and 2 were analyzed separately, there was a main effect of
order, F(1, 18) = 153.78, p < .001, and an interaction
between order and sequence pair, F(5, 90) = 16.70, p <
.001. The main effect of order indicated an overall ability of
listeners to discriminate different distances of key move-
ment. The interaction between order and sequence pair
indicated that listeners discriminated key movements better
for some sequence pairs than for others. Most importantly,
however, there was an interaction among order, sequence
pair, and experiment, F(5, 90) = 3.20, p < .011, confnTning
that performance expression influenced judgments of key
movement. The means from Experiments 1 and 2 are listed
in the Appendix.
Second, correlations between theoretical predictions and
the mean ratings for mechanical sequences (Experiment 1)
were compared with correlations between theoretical pre-
dictions and mean ratings for performed sequences (Exper-
iment 2). For the cycle of fifths, the correlation between
predicted ratings and mean ratings of performed sequences
(r = .92) was significantly higher than the correlation
between predicted ratings and the mean ratings of mechan-
ical sequences (r = .78), t(9) = 2.24, p < .05. Similarly, for
the toroidal model, the correlation between predicted ratings
and mean ratings of performed sequences (r = .98) was
significantly higher than the correlation between predicted
ratings and mean ratings of mechanical sequences (r = .87),
t(9) = 3.26, p < .01.
Finally, we obtained the correlation between ratings by
individual participants and theoretical predictions based on
the cycle of fifths and toroidal models. The set of 10
correlation coefficients for mechanical sequences (one for
each participant in Experiment 1) then was compared with
the set of 10 correlation coefficients for performed se-
quences (Experiment 2). For the cycle of fifths model,
correlations between predicted and actual ratings were sig-
nificantly higher when performed sequences were presented
(mean r = .79) than when mechanical sequences were
presented (mean r = .62), t(18) = 2.28, p < .05. Similarly,
for the toroidal model, correlations between predicted and
actual ratings were significantly higher when performed
sequences were presented (mean r = .85) than when me-
chanical sequences were presented (mean r = .68), t(18) =
2.29, p < .05.
A comparison of Figures 4 and 5 reveals two important
shifts that led to a greater correspondence, for performed
sequences, between judgments of key movement and theo-
retical predictions. First, performance expression had the
effect of increasing perceived key movement in sequences
modulating to IV# (relative to other sequences), resulting in
greater discrimination between sequence pairs involving
this type of key movement. Key movement to IV# was
underestimated (with respect to theoretical models) when
sequences were presented mechanically. Because perfor-
mance expression increased perceived key movement for
these sequences, performed versions of the sequences were
no longer underestimated with respect to theoretical models,
127
thereby increasing the correspondence between judgments
and theoretical predictions.
A second effect of performance expression was to de-
crease perceived key movement in sequences modulating to
III (relative to other sequences), resulting in poorer discrim-
ination between sequences modulating to II and sequences
modulating to III. Sequences modulating to III were judged
to involve greater key movement than all other modulation
types when they were presented mechanically. However,
the toroidal model predicts that perceived key movement for
this modulation type should be similar to that for modula-
tion to II and less than that for modulation to IV# (see Table
1). Because performance expression decreased perceived
key movement in sequences modulating to 111, judgments
for performed sequences were compatible with this predic-
tion. Listeners did not judge modulation to HI to involve
significantly greater key movement than modulation to II,
but they did judge modulation to III to involve significantly
less key movement than modulation to IV#.
Experiment 3 was designed to confirm these two effects
of performance expression by asking listeners to make
direct comparisons between mechanical and performed ver-
sions of each sequence. That is, listeners were presented a
mechanical version, followed by a performed version, and
they were asked to indicate whether the performance ex-
pression increased, decreased, or did not change the per-
ceived degree of key movement. We predicted that perfor-
mance expression should increase perceived key movement
most for sequences modulating to IV# and least for se-
quences modulating to HI.
Experiment 3
Experiment 3 provided a within-subjects test of the influ-
ence of performance expression. Each modulating mechan-
ical sequence was paired with the performed version of the
same sequence, and listeners were asked to judge the effect
of performance expression on their perception of the key
movement. The mechanical version always was presented
first, as a standard, and the listener judged whether the
effect of performance expression was to increase or to
decrease the perceived distance of key movement.
Nonmodulating sequences were excluded from Experi-
ment 3 for the following reason: To verify theoretical pre-
dictions, listeners were asked to judge the effects of perfor-
mance expression on perceived distance of key movement.
Nonmodulating sequences, by definition, do not involve key
movement. Thus, excluding nonmodulating sequences en-
sured that presentations were consistent with task demands.
On the basis of a comparison of the results of Experi-
ments 1 and 2, we predicted that the effect of performance
expression would vary with the type of modulation. In
particular, performance expression should lead to the great-
est increase in perceived key movement for sequences mod-
ulating to IV# and the least increase (or the most decrease)
in perceived key movement for sequences modulating to III.
Performance expression should have an intermediate effect
on judgments of sequences modulating to II.
128 THOMPSON AND CUDDY
Experiment 3 also explored the effects of modified per-
formance expression on perceived key movement. The ra-
tionale for the modification was based on a finding reported
by Thompson (1993). In that study, ratings of perceived key
movement for harmonized sequences did not differ for
modulations to III and modulations to IV# (a finding rep-
licated in the current Experiment 1). However, when indi-
vidual voices of those sequences were presented (i.e., so-
prano, alto, tenor, bass), ratings for these two types of
modulation were in fact differentiated. Thompson argued
that individual voices may carry informative cues about key
structure that are masked when voices are combined to form
mechanically presented harmonized sequences.
It may be expected that such cues are less masked in
performed sequences, when independence of individual
voices is emphasized through expressive cues (Palmer,
1989). If individual voices provide important cues about
key relationships, then removing expressive differences be-
tween individual voices from performed versions should
reduce or eliminate the effect of performance expression on
perceived key movement. Alternatively, if expressive dif-
ferences between voices do not provide important cues
about key relationships, then removing these differences
should give rise to the same differences found with full
performance expression.
Modified versions of sequences were created by editing
the MIDI files of performed versions. The modification
preserved only the performance expression between chords
(simultaneities) and therefore still involved deviations from
the notated, or mechanical, versions in loudness and timing.
However, modified versions involved no expressive differ-
ences between individual voices. Each modified version of
a sequence was paired with the mechanical version of that
sequence, and listeners were asked to judge the effect of
performance expression on perceived distance of key move-
ment. The question addressed was whether the results for
modified versions would correspond to the results for per-
formed versions.
Method
Participants
Ten adult listeners from the York University community, fitting
the same description as the listeners in Experiment 1, participated
in this experiment. None had participated in Experiments 1 and 2.
Sequences
The six modulating sequences shown in Figure 3 were used.
Apparatus and Stimuli
The apparatus was the same as that used in Experiment 1. The
stimuli were 18 pairs, in which the first member of the pair was a
mechanical version of one of the six modulating sequences, and
the second member was either a performed or modified version of
that sequence. Mechanical and performed versions were the stim-
uli presented in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively. Modified
versions preserved the between-chords performance expression of
the sequences presented in Experiment 2. That is, they preserved
differences in onset timing and loudness for the 14 chords of each
sequence. However, the MIDI values for time of onset and key-
press velocity for each note were set to the average value of the
four notes of each chord. Thus, the modification preserved the
chord-to-chord expression found in performed versions, but it did
not preserve expressive differences between individual voices (so-
prano, alto, tenor, bass). The methods for presenting stimuli and
collecting responses were the same as those used in the previous
experiments.
Design and Procedure
Each trial consisted of a mechanical version of a sequence,
followed by a performed or a modified version of the same
sequence. The pairing of each of six mechanical versions of the
modulating sequences with the performed version of the sequence,
or the modified version of the sequence, yielded 12 pairs. Six
additional altered versions of performances, again created by ed-
iting the MIDI fries, also were included in the experimental session
but are not discussed.2 The order of presentations was determined
randomly and independently for each listener.
Listeners f'trst were asked to judge whether the performance
expression involved in the second member of a pair enhanced or
reduced the perceived distance of key movement compared with
the mechanical version. Second, listeners indicated the degree of
the effect on a scale from 1 (notmuch) to 3 (a great deal). Practice
trials were provided as in the previous experiments.
Results and Discussion
Similar to the procedure of Experiments 1 and 2, the two
judgments were transformed to a score on a scale from 1 to
6, where 1 indicated that the expression used greatly re-
duced the perceived distance of key movement and 6 indi-
cated that the expression used greatly increased the per-
ceived distance of key movement. The data were subjected
to a two-variable repeated measures ANOVA. The two
variables were modulation type (modulation to II, modula-
tion to HI, and modulation to IV#) and comparison type
(performed and mechanical, and modified and mechanical).
Figure 8 shows the mean ratings for comparisons of
performed and mechanical versions and for comparisons of
modified and mechanical versions. Data are shown for the
three types of modulation and are collapsed across the two
sequence sets.
All comparisons produced mean ratings above the mid-
point of the scale (3.5), a result suggesting that both per-
formed and modified versions enhanced the sense of key
movement to some degree. Moreover, the mean rating for
performed versions (4.53) was significantly higher than the
2 The condition was included only for exploratory purposes.
These versions were created by shifting the onset time and velocity
of each note such that the average onset time and velocity of all
chords were identical. Thus, these versions maintained relative
differences between notes within chords but involved no overall
differences between chords. In addition to eliminating chord-to-
chord expression, the procedure distorts the phrasing of individual
voices. No reliable differences were found for this condition.
 PERFORMANCE AND KEY PERCEPTION
Figure & Mean ratings of the influence of performance expres-
sion on perceived key movement for performed and modified
versions and for each type of modulation (Mod) averaged across
the two sequence sets. Bars in each set are as follows: left = Mod
II, middle = Mod HI, and right = Mod IV#.
mean rating for modified versions (3.85), F(1, 9) = 10.74,
p < .01, indicating that the expressive differences between
voices generally enhanced perceived key movement.
Inspection of Figure 8 reveals that only for comparisons
involving performed versions were the results compatible
with the prediction based on the previous two experiments.
For comparisons involving performed versions, the mean
rating for sequences modulating to IV# was highest, the
mean rating for sequences modulating to HI was lowest, and
the mean rating for sequences modulating to II was inter-
mediate. A planned trend analysis supported this observa-
tion; the linear trend (comparing modulation to IV# with
modulation to HI) was significant, F(1, 9) = 6.74, p < .03,
whereas the quadratic trend (comparing modulating to II
with the average of the other two types of modulation) was
not (F < 1). No effects of type of modulation were found
for comparisons involving modified versions. Thus, the
effects found for performed versions were not found for
modified versions.
The results of Experiment 3 confirm that performance
expression influenced judgments such that they corre-
sponded more closely to the toroidal model of key relation-
ships. However, expressive differences between individual
voices must be present for this influence to be effective;
129
chord-to-chord expression alone was not sufficient to rep-
licate the effect found for fully performed versions.
Experiment 4
The results of Experiment 3 confLrm that performance
expression influenced perceived key movement in the di-
rection of the toroidal model. These effects were found for
performed versions, but not for modified versions in which
expressive differences between individual voices were re-
moved. The latter finding suggests that the effects of per-
formance expression depended on expressive differences
between voices.
There is, however, an alternative explanation for this
potentially important finding. It is possible that removing
expressive differences between voices seriously degraded
the musicality of the sequences and listeners were unable to
judge the effects of such expression on perceived key move-
ment. If this were the case, it would be difficult to draw
conclusions regarding the role of expressive differences
between voices in conveying key movement. However, if
modified and performed versions are judged to be similar in
overall musicality, one could assume that expressive differ-
ences between voices specifically affect the perception of
key movement. Thus, Experiment 4 was conducted to con-
firm that the modification to the performed versions did not
merely degrade the perceived musicality of the stimuli.
Me~od
Participants
Ten adult listeners from the York University community, fitting
the same description as the listeners in Experiment 1, participated
in this experiment. None had been involved in the previous
experiments.
Sequences
The eight sequences shown in Figure 3 were used.
Apparatus and Stimuli
The apparatus was the same as that used in Experiment 1.
Different versions of each sequence were used--mechanical, per-
formed, and modified versions---following the method outlined in
Experiment 3. Methods for stimulus presentation and response
collection were the same as those used in the previous experi-
ments. All modulation types were included in the experiment:
nonmodulation and modulation to II, III, and IV#.
Design and Procedure
Each trial consisted of the presentation of one version of one of
the sequences. After each presentation, tisteners were asked to rate
the musicality of the performance on a scale from 1 (unmusical) to
7 (very musical). The 24 trials--Eight Sequences Three Ver-
sions--were presented in an order that was determined randomly
and independently for each listener. Eight other altered versions of
performances, also created by editing the MIDI files, were in-
130 THOMPSON AND CUDDY
cluded in the experimental session but are not discussed.3 Practice
trials were provided as in previous experiments.
Results and Discussion
Figure 9 displays mean ratings for each of the three
versions for each type of modulation. Data were averaged
across the two sequence sets. Ratings were subjected to an
ANOVA with repeated measures on three variables: perfor-
mance version with three levels, type of modulation with
four levels, and sequence set (A vs. B).
There was a significant main effect of performance ver-
sion, F(2, 18) = 11.97, p < .001. Examination of Figure 9
indicates that mechanical versions were perceived to be
relatively unmusical compared with the performed and
modified versions. Post hoc comparisons indicated that the
former versions were assigned significantly lower ratings
than the latter versions, F(1, 9) = 12.70, p < .01. However,
there was no significant difference between the performed
and modified versions. These findings confirm that, al-
though modifications disrupted the effect of performance
expression on judgments of key movement, modifications
had no effect on the musical quality of performances.
Of secondary interest, there was a significant main effect
of type of modulation, F(3, 27) = 3.28, p < .05. Examina-
tion of Figure 9 suggests that listeners perceived sequences
modulating to IV# to be the least musical of all sequences.
Mean ratings for the other three types of modulation were
similar. There was no significant effect of sequence set.
Performance Variation Reflects Knowledge o f Key:
Evidence F r o m an Analysis o f MIDI Files
o f Performances
The results of the experiments indicate that performance
expression influenced judgments of key movement. The
7-
11
5
c First, the complete set of 115 melodic asynchrony values
el
'- 4
| 3 These versions were identical to the altered versions included
II 3 in Experiment 3 (see Footnote 2). Judgments for these versions
2 ratings of musicality, indicating that judgments of musicality were
i i i !
Nonmod Mod II Mod III Mod IV#
Version
Figure 9. Mean ratings of musicality for each of the three ver-
sions (mechanical [0], performed [Iq], and modified [lid for each
type of modulation (MOd) averaged across the two sequence sets.
Nomod = nonmodulation.
next phase of our research involved an analysis of MIDI
files of performances, with the aim of identifying perfor-
mance variables that may have been responsible for the
experimental effects (thus, these analyses went beyond the
general descriptions of performances provided in Experi-
ment 2). The analyses in this section were motivated by the
discovery that performance expression could influence
judgments of key movement (Experiments 1-3) and that
this influence depended on expressive differences between
individual notes, not on expressive differences between
chords (Experiments 3 and 4).
Three variables available from MIDI fries were consid-
ered: melodic asynehrony, IOI ratio, and keypress velocity.
The aim of the analysis was to assess the possibility that the
loudness and/or timing of individual notes reflected (among
other aspects of musical structure) the tonal stability of
notes with respect to overall key. By conveying tonal sta-
bility through loudness, timing, or both, performance ex-
pression might provide listeners with an additional source of
information to determine key and key movement.
The tonal stability of notes was estimated using tonal
hierarchy values reported by Krumhansl and Kessler (1982)
and described in detail by Krumhansl (1990). These tonal
hierarchy values can be used to derive both the cycle of
fifths and the toroidal models of key relationships (Krum-
hansl, 1990). Therefore, a link between expressive variables
and tonal hierarchy values could account for the correspon-
dence between judgments of key movement in performed
sequences and predictions based on the cycle of fifths and
toroidal models.
Tonal hierarchy values were assigned to notes by deter-
mining the scale degree of all notes relative to the current
key (i.e., tonic, sharpened tonic, etc.). The key of Phrase 1
was identified as C major for all eight sequences. The key
of Phrase 2 was identified differently depending on the type
of modulation. For nonmodulating sequences, the key of
Phrase 2 was identified as C major. For sequences modu-
lating to H, HI, and IV#, the key of Phrase 2 was identified
as D major, E major, and F-sharp major, respectively:
Melodic Asynchrony
was compared with the corresponding set of tonal hierarchy
were not included in the statistical analysis. However, it is notable
that these versions and mechanical versions were assigned similar
not based on the presence of deviations from mechanical
presentation.
4 For modulating sequences, we also considered the possibility
that the performer may have treated the beginning of Phrase 2 as
the key of C major, and it may be appropriate to identify the point
of key change at a later temporal position in the sequence (e.g.,
when the fwst nondiatonic note occurs). However, alternative
interpretations of the precise time of the key change within Bar 3
had no or little effect on the overall correlation between expressive
variables and the tonal hierarchy.
 PERFORMANCE AND KEY PERCEPTION
values. There was no correlation between the degree of
melodic asynchrony and the tonal hierarchy value of notes,
r(l13) = .01, ns. Two additional analyses also failed to
reveal a relationship between melodic asynchrony and the
tonal hierarchy. First, the tonal hierarchy provided no
unique l~redictive power in a number of multiple regression
models. Second, average asynehrony values for the 12
scale degrees (collapsed across all soprano notes in all eight
sequences) were uncorrelated with the corresponding tonal
hierarchy values, r(10) = .16, ns.
I 0 1 Ratio
Next, we examined the IOI ratio of notes separately for
each individual voice. The IOI for a given note was calcu-
lated as the time interval between the onset of the note and
the onset of the subsequent note. The IOI ratio of each note
in performed sequences was obtained by dividing the I0I of
the note by the IOI of the corresponding note in mechanical
sequences. Because no IOI can be calculated for the final
note of any sequence, the IOI ratio for these notes was
replaced with the ratio between the duration of the note in
the performed sequence and the duration of the note in the
mechanical sequence. Because the tempi of performed and
mechanical sequences were equated, the ratios provided an
appropriate measure of the relative lengthening and short-
ening of durations in performances. Tonal hierarchy values
were assigned to notes in the manner described previously.
Evaluation of IOI ratio was done in two ways, as had been
done for the analysis of melodic asynchrony. First, we
considered the complete set of IOI ratio values for each
voice in all eight sequences. This analysis considered notes
in both phrases, but we also examined notes only in Phrase
2. (The type of modulation always was established in Phrase
2, so information related to key should have been clearly
evident in this phrase.) Second, we considered the average
IOI ratio values for each of the 12 scale degrees (i.e., tonic,
sharpened tonic, etc.), collapsed across all sequences.
For the soprano voice, there was a small but significant
correlation between the set of IOI ratio values and the tonal
hierarchy values, r(154) = .20, p < .05. The correlation was
increased slightly when only notes within the second phrase
were considered, r(82) = .23, p < .05. For the bass voice,
there also was a significant correlation between the set of
IOI ratio values and the tonal hierarchy values, r(118) =
.32, p < .001. Again, this correlation was increased when
only notes within the second phrase were considered,
r(54) = .42, p < .001. There were no significant correla-
tions between IOI ratio and the tonal hierarchy for inner
voices.
This correspondence between IOI ratio and tonal hierar-
chy values, for soprano and bass voices, also held when
correlations were examined separately for each of the eight
sequences. For the soprano voice, the mean correlation was
.20, which was significantly different from zero, t(7) =
4.90, p < .002. For the bass voice, the mean correlation was
.36, which also was significantly different from zero, t(7) =
6.66, p < .00t.
131
A multiple regression analysis indicated that for soprano
and bass voices, the tonal hierarchy had predictive power
beyond what was explained by predictors based on phrasing
and metric stress. We evaluated several predictors related to
phrasing and metric stress: The phrasing predictor with the
greatest predictive power was created by coding notes at
phrase boundaries as 1 and other notes as 0. The metric
stress predictor was created by coding notes at the first,
second, third, and fourth beats of each bar as 3, 1, 2, and 1,
respectively (see Lerdahl & Jackendoff, 1983). We then
entered these predictors and the tonal hierarchy predictor
into a multiple regression analysis. The multiple correlation
for this three-predictor model was .34 for the soprano voice
(p < .01) and .45 for the bass voice (p < .01). Beta weights
for the phrase boundary predictor were significant for the
soprano voice (/8 = .290, p < .01), but not significant for
the bass voice (/8 = .180, p < .09). Beta weights for the
metric stress predictor were significant for both the soprano
voice (18 = -.282, p < .01) and the bass voice (18 = -.342,
p < .001). Most importantly, beta weights for the tonal
hierarchy predictor were significant for both the soprano
voice (/3 = . 156, p < .05) and the bass voice (18 = .313, p <
.001).
Finally, the average IOI ratio for each of the 12 scale
degrees was calculated (collapsed across all sequences), and
these average values were compared with the corresponding
tonal hierarchy values in a correlation analysis. This ap-
proach was adopted to diminish the effects of local influ-
ences (e.g., metric stress, intervalllc movement, fingering)
and to highlight the overall relationship between IOI ratio
and tonal stability. The soprano voice contained instances of
all 12 scale degrees. Alto, tenor, and bass voices contained
9, 11, and 10 of the 12 scale degrees, respectively. Average
IOI ratio values were correlated significantly with the tonal
hierarchy for the soprano voice, r(10) = .71, p < .01, and
for the bass voice, r(8) = .62, p < .05. Average IOI ratio
values were not correlated significantly with the tonal hier-
archy for the alto voice, r(7) = -.20, ns, or for the tenor
voice, r(9) = .44, ns.
Keypress Velocity
As with IOI ratio, evaluation of keypress velocity was
done in two ways. We first considered the complete set of
keypress velocity values for each voice in all eight se-
quences. We next considered average keypress velocity
values for each of the 12 scale degrees (collapsed across
sequences).
For the soprano voice, the correlation between the com-
plete set of keypress velocity values and the tonal hierarchy
values was not significant, r(154) = - . 1 4 , p < .08. A small
but significant correlation was found when only notes
5 Multiple regression was explored to assess the possibility that
a relationship between melodic asynchrony and the tonal hierarchy
was suppressed by other covariates (e.g., metric stress, notated
duration, loudness). However, even after statistically controlling
for the effects of other variables, there was no evidence for any
relationship between melodic asynchrony and the tonal hierarchy.
132 THOMPSON AND CUDDY
within the second phrase were considered, r(82) = -.26,
p < .05. For the bass voice, the correlation between key-
press velocity and the tonal hierarchy was significant,
r(l18) = -.27, p < .01. This correlation was increased
when only notes within the second phrase were considered,
r(54) = -.36, p < .001. There were no significant corre-
lations associated with alto or tenor voices.
This correspondence between tonal hierarchy values and
keypress velocity in the bass voice also held when correla-
tions were examined separately for each of the eight se-
quences. The mean correlation for the eight bass voices
was -.27, which was significantly different from zero,
t(7) = -3.48, p < .01.
A multiple regression analysis indicated that for the bass
voice, the tonal hierarchy had predictive power beyond what
was explained by predictors based on phrasing and metric
stress. We entered predictors based on phrasing and metric
stress (described earlier) with the tonal hierarchy predictor
into a multiple regression analysis. The multiple correlation
for this three-predictor model was .38 (p < .01). The beta
weight was significant for the phrase boundary predictor
(/3 = -.309, p < .01) and marginally significant for the
tonal hierarchy predictor (/3 = -.177, p < .056). The beta
weight was not significant for the metric stress predictor
(/3 = .077, p < .40).
The average keypress velocity for each of the 12 scale
degrees then was calculated (across sequences), and these
average values were compared with tonal hierarchy values
in a correlation analysis. The correlation between average
keypress velocities and the tonal hierarchy values was not
significant for the soprano voice, r(10) = .49, ns, or the
tenor voice, r(9) = -.30, ns. However, average keypress
velocity values were significantly correlated with tonal hi-
erarchy values for the alto voice, r(7) = -.61, p < .05, and
the bass voice, r(8) = -.84, p < .01. It may be noted that
the negative coefficients associated with loudness indicate a
tendency to emphasize tonally unstable notes and deem pha-
size stable notes, as Sundberg et al. (1983) predicted.
Summary of MIDI Analysis
The analysis of the MIDI files revealed that within indi-
vidual voices, timing and loudness cues were correlated
with the tonal stability of notes. Notes that were tonally
stable within a key tended to be played for longer duration
in the soprano and bass voices and softer in the bass voice.
General Discussion
The results of this research indicate that performance
expression influences the perception of key movement. The
performer's use of loudness and timing significantly af-
fected listeners' judgments of key movement. The finding
highlights the importance, in theoretical discussions of mu-
sic cognition, of performance expression in shaping listen-
ers' perceptions of musical pitch structure. The effects of
performance expression are subtle because performance it-
self must conform to the static elements of a musical score;
performance expression serves to enhance or modify (or
both) information that is already present in the score. Nev-
ertheless, the effects of performance expression are system-
atic and significant, thus implicating performance as a cru-
cial component of musical communication.
A comparison of the results of Experiments 1 and 2
suggests ~that judgments of key movement were not the
same for performed versions as they were for mechanical
versions of the same sequences. In particular, performance
expression brought judgments in line with theoretical pre-
dictions based on the cycle of fifths and toroidal models of
key relationships. In Experiment 3, we confirmed this effect
of performance expression by having listeners compare
directly mechanical and performed versions of the same
sequences.
The results of Experiment 3 also indicate that if per-
formed versions were modified by removing expressive
differences between voices, the effect of performance ex-
pression on judgments was eliminated. Modified versions
that did not involve expressive differences between individ-
ual voices were comparable to mechanical versions in terms
of their impact on perceived key movement. This finding
suggests that expressive differences between individual
voices were responsible for the effects of performance ex-
pression on judgments of key movement.
The results of Experiment 4 reveal that, unlike judgments
of key movement, judgments of musicality did not depend
on expressive differences between individual voices. Mod-
ified versions that preserved between-chords expression
were judged to be as musical as performed versions by
moderately trained listeners. This finding suggests that ex-
pressive differences between individual voices are not es-
sential to the overall musical quality of performed versions
even though they provide essential cues for the perception
of key movement.
An analysis of MIDI fries for performed versions identi-
fied two possible sources of information about key structure
in performances. First, there was a significant relationship
between the timing (IOI ratio) of individual notes and the
tonal hierarchy, particularly for the soprano voice. Second,
there was a significant relationship between the keypress
velocity of individual notes and the tonal hierarchy, partic-
ularly for the bass voice. In addition, for IOI ratio values in
the soprano and bass voices, and for velocity values in the
6 For the bass voice, both interonset interval (IOI) ratio and
keypress velocity were correlated with the tonal hierarchy. This
finding raises the question of whether IOI ratio and keypress
velocity are related variables. Considering notes in the bass voice,
the correlation between IOI ratio and loudness values was -.20
(df = 118, p < .05). Considering notes in all four voices, the
correlation between IOI ratio and loudness values was again -.20
(df = 494, p < .001). Although these correlations were statistically
reliable, the coefficients indicated that each variable accounted for
less than 5% of the variance of the other variable. Thus, IOI ratio
and loudness reflect largely distinct sources of variance in perfor-
mance expression. A multiple regression revealed that both had
predictive power for tonal stability in the bass voice (R = .38),
with beta weights for both IOI ratio and keypress velocity signif-
icant beyond the .01 level.
 PERFORMANCE AND KEY PERCEPTION
bass voice, the tonal hierarchy provided predictive power
beyond what could be explained by predictors based on
phrasing and metric stress. Finally, when average values for
each scale degree were considered, the tonal hierarchy was
highly correlated with IOI ratio (especially for the soprano
voice) and velocity (especially for the bass voice). Overall,
the MIDI analysis strongly suggested that information about
key structure is available to listeners in a performer's use of
both loudness and timing.
Implications for Production and Perception
Two possible production mechanisms may be invoked to
account for the reported effects. First, performance expres-
sion may directly reflect a performer's knowledge of key.
That is, performers may emphasize or deemphasize notes in
a way that references their knowledge of key.
This possibility is consistent with theoretical suggestions
made by Sundberg and his colleagues (Sundberg et al.,
1983; Thompson et al., 1989). Sundberg et al. (1983) pro-
posed a set of "rules" relating performance expression to
musical structure. Two of the rules--melodic and harmonic
chargemimply a direct link between knowledge of key and
the motor commands that give rise to performance expres-
sion. Specifically, tonally "charged" events (i.e., unstable
events with respect to the overall key) are thought to be
emphasized, usually by increases in loudness. Our finding
of an inverse relationship between loudness and tonal sta-
bility thus provided support for the rules of melodic and
harmonic charge. However, these rules were only partially
supported by the results of our research. Melodic and har-
monic charge also predicted a negative correlation between
tonal stability and the expressive lengthening of durations.
By contrast, we found that IOI ratio and tonal stability were
correlated positively.
A second possibility is that performance expression does
not reflect the performer's knowledge of key in spite of the
influence of performance expression on judgments of key
movement. Instead, performance expression may have been
directed at another dimension of structure, such as the
grouping of events into phrases or metric stress. Because
phrase structure and metric stress are compositionaUy re-
lated to tonal stability, performance expression might have
had an incidental effect of reflecting key structure. For
example, phrase endings in Western tonal music are typi-
cally associated with tonally stable events, and performers
tend to end each phrase with a diminuendo and a ritardando.
This coincidence of tonal structure and performance expres-
sion could lead to a negative correlation between loudness
and tonal stability and a positive correlation between IOI
ratio and tonal stability, consistent with our findings. How-
ever, in the series of multiple regression analyses described
earlier, we confirmed that the tonal hierarchy had predictive
power beyond what was explained by predictors based on
phrase boundaries and metric stress. Moreover, it is impor-
tant to recognize that the perceptual abstraction of phrase
boundaries and metric structure may be cued partially by the
tonal stability of notes. Thus, when a performer uses ex-
133
pression to articulate a phrase, knowledge of tonal structure
may be involved implicitly.
The effects reported here also are relevant to previous
investigations of key perception. In earlier reports (Thomp-
son, 1993; Thompson & Cuddy, 1989, 1992), we argued
that the perception of key from a sequence of chords in-
volves different principles than the perception of key from
an individual voice or melody. Our proposal was contrasted
with a strict hierarchical model of melody, harmony, and
key, in which an individual voice or melody conveys key
structure by implying an underlying chord progression. Al-
though the current research was not designed to reexamine
this issue, the findings provide support for our previous
claims. A strict hierarchical model predicts that information
concerning key should be associated most strongly with the
chord progression. Thus, performance variation that acts to
emphasize certain chords over others might be expected to
influence judgments of key movement. However, we found
that chord-to-chord expression, in the absence of expressive
differences between voices, had no influence on judgments
of key movement. Expressive differences between voices
were essential to the effects of performance expression on
judgments. This f'mding is compatible with our earlier claim
that individual voices are able to reference key structure in
a way that cannot be explained merely in terms of implied
chord progression.
Our findings also may add to the understanding of the
process by which musical key is abstracted. It has been
argued that the abstraction of key involves a process of
assessing the similarity between musical input and an es-
tablished internal representation of key acquired through
long-term exposure to Western tonal music (e.g., Krum-
hansl & Schmuckler, cited in Krumhansl, 1990). In the
current research, theoretical models of key relationships
were better able to predict judgments of key movement in
performed sequences than in mechanical sequences. Our
interpretation of this finding is that performance expression
modified the nature of the musical input, such that it cor-
responded more closely to the performer's internal repre-
sentation of keys.
The convergence of our judgment data with the toroidal
model of key relationships provides strong support for the
psychological validity of the tonal hierarchy as an internal
representation of key (for a related description, see Lerdahl,
1988). The toroidal model of keys, which was derived from
the tonal hierarchy values, provided excellent predictions of
judgments for performed versions. The toroidal model of
keys was a more successful predictor of judgments than was
the cycle of fifths model of keys. This comparison suggests
that perceived key distance reflects the similarity between
tonal hierarchies of keys, not merely the degree of overlap
of diatonic (scale) notes.
Parallels With Speech
The effects of performance expression on perceptual
judgments may reflect general perceptual-motor principles
that are not limited to the domain of music. In particular, the
134 THOMPSON AND CUDDY
effects reported are comparable to effects of intonation on
language comprehension. Research has established that in-
tonation is an important source of verbal information. Pro-
sodic cues, in combination with syntactic cues, have been
found to influence sentence segmentation (Geers, 1978).
Accurate segmentation, in turn, is an important determinant
of verbal comprehension. Our analysis of music perfor-
mances revealed comparable cues to segmentation. Phrase
endings were associated with decreases in loudness and
increases in duration. It is likely that such performance cues
contribute to the perceptual segmentation of sequences into
phrases.
When verbal material contains new information, compre-
hension is quicker if the new information is accented by
intonation than if it is not (Bock & Mazzelia, 1983). The use
of intonation stress to signal new information has been
observed in young children and may be viewed as a cross-
cultural phenomenon (MacWhinney & Bates, 1978). The
accenting of new verbal information with intonation is
analogous to the Sundberg et al. (1983) hypothesis on music
performance, supported by our MIDI analysis, that unex-
pected pitches are emphasized in performance with in-
creases in loudness.
These parallel effects of speech intonation and music
performance implicate a general phenomenon in which mo-
tor production mechanisms reference knowledge of struc-
tural levels derived from the surface characteristics of
events. Speech production mechanisms may access knowl-
edge of new or contrasting information, phrase and sentence
structure, and emotional connotation. Similarly, production
mechanisms involved in music performance may access
knowledge of melodic structure, rhythmic structure, style,
emotional tone, and, as our findings indicate, key relation-
ships. In both cases, levels of structure are clarified and
enhanced by production mechanisms.
References
Bartlett, J. C., & Dowling, W. J. (1980). The recognition of trans-
posed melodies: A key-distance effect in developmental per-
spective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Percep-
tion and Performance, 6, 501-515.
Bock, J.K., & Mazzella, J.R. (1983). Intonational marking of
given and new information: Some consequences for comprehen-
sion. Memory & Cognition, 11, 64-76.
Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory scene analysis. Cambridge, MA:
M1T Press.
Butler, D. (1992). The musician's guide to perception and cogni-
tion. New York: Schirmer.
Clarke, E.F. (1982). Timing in the performance of Erik Satie's
"Vexations." Acta Psychologica, 50, 1-19.
Clarke, E. F. (1985). Structure and expression in rhythmic perfor-
mance. In P. Howell, I. Cross, & R. West (Eds.), Musical
structure and cognition (pp. 209-236). San Diego, CA: Aca-
demic Press.
Cohen, A.J. (1991). Tonality and perception: Musical scales
primed by excerpts from "rhe Well Tempered Clavier" of J. S.
Bach. Psychological Research, 53, 305-314.
Cuddy, L. L., Cohen, A. J., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (1981). Percep-
tion of structure in short melodic sequences. Journal of Exper-
imental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7,
869-883.
Cuddy, L.L., & Thompson, W.F. (1992). Asymmetry of per-
ceived key movement in chorale sequences: Converging evi-
dence from a probe-tone analysis. Psychological Research, 54,
51-59.
Dowling, W. J., & Harwood, D. L. (1986). Music cognition. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Gabrielsson, A. (Ed.). (1987). Action and perception in rhythm
and music. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Swedish Academy of
Music.
Gabrielsson, A. (1988). Timing in music performance and its
relations to music experience. In J. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative
processes in music (pp. 27-51). Oxford, England: Clarendon
Press.
Geers, A. E. (1978). Intonation contour and syntactic sttatcture as
predictors of apparent segmentation. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 273-
283.
Handel, S. (1989). Listening: An introduction to the perception of
auditory events. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hindemith, P. (1968). A concentrated course in traditional har-
mony: Book L (Rev. ed.). New York: Sehott.
Krumhansl, C. L. (1990). Cognitive foundations of musical pitch.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Krumhansl, C.L., & Kessler, E. (1982). Tracing the dynamic
changes in perceived tonal organization in a spatial representa-
tion of musical keys. Psychological Review, 89, 334-368.
Krumhansl, C. L., & Shepard, R. N. (1979). Quantification of the
hierarchy of tonal functions within a diatonic context. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
5, 579-594.
Lerdald, F. (1988). Tonal pitch space. Music Perception, 5,
315-349.
Lerdahl, F., & Jackendoff, R. (1983). A generative theory of tonal
music. Cambridge, MA: M1T Press.
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1978). Sentential devices for con-
veying givenness and newness: A cross-cultural developmental
study. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17,
539-558.
Palmer, C. (1988). Timing in skilled music performance. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Palmer, C. (1989). Mapping musical thought to musical perfor-
mance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and Performance, 15, 331-346.
Palmer, C. (1992). The role of interpretive preferences in music
performance. In M. R. Jones & S. Holleran (Eds.), Cognitive
bases of musical communication (pp. 249-262). Washington,
DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.
Palmer, C., & van de Sande, C. (1993). Units of knowledge in
music performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1-14.
Piston, W. (1962). Harmony (3rd ed.). New York: Norton. (Orig-
inal work published 1941).
Rasch, R. A. (1979). Synchronization in performed ensemble mu-
sic. Acustica, 43, 121-131.
Repp, B. (1992). A consl~aint on the expressive timing of a
melodic gesture: Evidence from performance and aesthetic judg-
ment. Music Perception, 10, 221-242.
Sloboda, J.A. (1985). Expressive skill in two pianists: Metrical
communication in real and simulated performances. Canadian
Journal of Psychology, 39, 273-293.
Sloboda J. A. (Ed.). (1988). Generative processes in music. Ox-
ford, England: Clarendon Press.
 PERFORMANCE AND KEY PERCEPTION 135

Sundberg, J. (Ed.). (1983). Studies of music performance. Stock-
holm, Sweden: Royal Swedish Academy of Music.
Sundberg, J., Fryden, L., & Askenfelt, A. (1983). What tells you the
player is musical? An analysis-by-synthesis study of music perfor-
mance. In J. Sundberg (Ed.), Studies of music performance (pp.
61-75). Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Swedish Academy of Music.
Thompson, W.F. (1993). Modeling perceived relationships be-
tween melody, harmony, and key. Perception & Psychophysics,
53, 13-24.
Thompson, W.F., & Cuddy, L.L. (1989). Sensitivity to key
change in chorale sequences: A comparison of single voices and
four-voice harmony. Music Perception, 7, 151-168.
Thompson, W. F., & Cuddy, L. L. (1992). Perceived key move-
ment in four-voice harmony and single voices. Music Percep-
tion, 9, 427-438.
Thompson, W. F., Sundberg, J., Friberg, A., & Fryden, L. (1989).
The use of rules in the performance of melodies. Psychology of
Music, 17, 63-82.
Todd, N. P. (1985). A model of expressive timing in tonal music.
Music Perception, 3, 33-59.

Appendix
Mean Ratings and Standard Errors for Each Pair Type in Both Orders for Experiment 1 (Mechanical
Sequences) and Experiment 2 (Performed Sequences)
Experiment 1 Experiment 2
Pair type Order 1 Order 2 Order 1 Order 2
Nonmod 4.60 2.75 4.50 2.45
Mod II 0.24 0.23 0.26 0.26

Nonmod 5.10 2.30 4.85 2.70

Mod HI 0.23 0.33 0.21 0.29

Nonmod 4.50 2.60 5.00 2.00

Mod IV# 0.36 0.38 0.21 0.25

Mod II 4.05 3.00 3.85 3.20

MOd HI 0.38 0.31 0.34 0.39

MOd II 3.95 3.40 4.40 3.30

Mod IV# 0.36 0.42 0.33 0.41

Mod Ill 3.80 4.25 4.20 3.20

Mod IV# 0.42 0.41 0.30 0.35
Note. Ratings near 6 indicate that the second sequence involved greater distance than the first sequence. Nonmod = nonmodulation;
MOd = modulation.

Received December 14, 1994

Revision received April 18, 1995
Accepted October 9, 1995