Music components
All music data were prepared in MIDI files with the following information about the music components.
Tempo.
In the current experiment, the tempo specified in the MIDI file is referred to as the typically performed tempo. The music used in this study was made from pieces downloaded from websites22,23 that provide music data recorded in a common mode of performance, and the music was not performed with a unique tempo. It was confirmed that the performed tempo of the music used in this study followed indications of the music tempo in scores. Typically, the music performances followed the indications of the music tempo. Therefore, the tempos of the music used in this study could be regarded as typically performed tempos. The unit of tempo was beats per minute (bpm) whereby a certain number of beats was detected for one minute. The average typically performed tempo was 89.7 bpm (SD=35.2). The range was from 27 to 200 bpm.
Number of notes.
The number of notes represents how many notes are presented in a music score. The average number of notes was 85.2 (SD=32.0). The range was from 38.0 to 156.0.
Pitch.
The pitch represents how high or low each sound is. The larger number represents a higher sound. Middle C (C4) is 60 in MIDI pitch. The average of all pitches presented in this study was 63.3 (SD=5.5). The range of the average for each piece of music was from 54.8 to 80.5.
Velocity.
The velocity represents how fast the key of a note is pressed, which relates to the sound volume. The range of MIDI velocity is from 0 to 127. The average of the velocity was 50.2 (SD=15.7). The range of the average velocity for each piece of music was from 32.0 to 97.4.
Behavioural results
The adjusted tempo in the tempo preference task.
The average adjusted tempo in the tempo preference task for two trials was calculated for each participant. For the first and the second days, the same pieces of music were presented in random order. The averages of the adjusted tempo were 99.5 bpm (SD=13.4) for the first day and 99.1 bpm (SD=13.6) for the second day. There was no significant difference between the first day and the second day (t(22)=0.41, p=.69, r=.09). The correlation between the adjusted tempo for the first and the second day was significant (r=.90, N=23, p<.001), implying that the adjusted tempo was robust regarding the time interval. We calculated the average of the adjusted tempo for the first day and the second day for each piece of music and participant (average=99.3 bpm, SD=12.7), and those were used as the preferred music tempo in the following analyses. The range of the preferred music tempo was from 35 to 224 bpm.
The familiarity rating for each piece of music.
In the familiarity judgement task, the number of data points rated 1 (extremely novel), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (extremely familiar) and were 231, 91, 57, 46, 63, 71, and 131, respectively.
The tempo in the tapping task.
The tapping task consisted of two trials, and one trial lasted 30 s. The preferred tapping tempo in bpm for each participant was calculated as the sum of the number of taps for two trials. The average of the preferred tapping tempo was 104.6 bpm (SD=25.3). The range of the preferred tapping tempo was from 54 to 170 bpm.
Correlations between the preferred tapping tempo / the music components and the preferred music tempo.
At first, all 690 data points (23 participants × 30 music) were divided into three music familiarity categories based on the responses in the familiarity judgement task: familiar, neutral familiarity, and unfamiliar music. The data points rated 6 or 7 were for familiar music (the number of data points was 202). The data points rated 3, 4, or 5 were for neutral familiarity (the number of data points was 166). The data points rated 1 or 2 were for unfamiliar music (the number of data points was 322). Then, the correlations between the preferred tapping tempo / the music components (typically performed tempo, number of notes, pitch, and velocity) and the preferred music tempo were calculated for each familiarity category (Figure 2).
Regarding the correlation between the preferred tapping tempo and the preferred music tempo, there were significant correlations for the familiar (r=.36, N=202, p<.001), neutral (r=.45, N=166, p<.001) and unfamiliar (r=.52, N=322, p<.001) categories (Figure 2, top row). Regarding the correlation between the typically performed tempo and the preferred music tempo, there was a significant correlation for familiar music (r=.42, N=202, p<.001) but not for the neutral (r=.13, N=166, p=.083) or unfamiliar (r=.09, N=322, p=.105) categories (Figure 2, second row from the top). The correlations between the number of notes and the preferred music tempo were significant for familiar music (r=-.14, N=202, p=.048), neutral (r=-.17, N=166, p=.029), and unfamiliar (r=-.18, N=322, p<.001) categories (Figure 2, middle row). The correlations between the pitch and the preferred music tempo were significant for familiar music (r=.27, N=202, p<.001) and neutral (r=.16, N=166, p=.045) but not for the unfamiliar (r=-.03, N=322, p=.592) category (Figure 2, second row from the bottom). The correlations between the velocity and the preferred music tempo were not significant for familiar music (r=-.07, N=202, p=.313), neutral (r=.08, N=166, p=.328), and unfamiliar (r=-.04, N=322, p=.480) categories (Figure 2,bottom row).
Correlations among music components
The correlations among music components for the thirty pieces of music used in this experiment were calculated. The correlations between the typically performed tempo and the number of notes were not significant (r=-.22, N=30, p=.252). The correlations between the typically performed tempo and the pitch were not significant (r=.28, N=30, p=.135). The correlations between the typically performed tempo and the velocity were not significant (r=.33, N=30, p=.075). The correlations between the number of notes and the pitch were not significant (r=-.20, N=30, p=.299). The correlations between the number of notes and the velocity were not significant (r=.27, N=30, p=.153). The correlations between the pitch and the velocity were not significant (r=-.07, N=30, p=.705). No significant correlation was found for any combinations of music components.
Multiple linear regression analysis
To assess how internal motor tempo and external music components contribute to tempo preference, a multiple linear regression was calculated to predict the preferred music tempo on the preferred tapping tempo, the typically performed tempo, the number of notes, the pitch, and the velocity. All music components analysed in this study were used in the multiple linear regression analysis because there was not significant correlation among the components.
Table 1 (the leftmost) shows the results of the multiple regression analysis. The model was significant and accounted for 26% of the variance in the preferred music tempo, R2 = .26, R2 Adjusted = .26, F(6, 683) = 48.58, p = .000, f 2= .35. The preferred tapping tempo (β = .46, p =.000), the typically performed tempo (β = .15, p =.000), and the number of notes (β = -.13, p =.000) made significant contributions to the preferred music tempo whereas the pitch and the velocity did not make significant contributions (p > .05).
To examine the effect of familiarity with a piece of music on the preferred music tempo, three separate multiple regression analyses were conducted (Table 1, three rows from the right). The data were divided into three categories in the same way as in the calculation of the correlations. For the familiar category, the model was significant and accounted for 29% of the variance in the preferred music tempo, R2 = .29, R2 Adjusted = .27, F(6, 195) = 16.04, p = .000, f 2 = .41. The preferred tapping tempo (β = .32, p = .000) and the typically performed tempo (β = .37, p = .000) made significant contributions to the preferred music tempo whereas the number of notes, the pitch, and the velocity did not make significant contributions (p > .05). For the neutral familiarity, the model was significant and accounted for 30% of the variance in the preferred music tempo, R2 = .30, R2 Adjusted = .28, F(6, 159) = 13.59, p = .000, f 2 = .43. The preferred tapping tempo (β = .51, p = .000) and the number of notes (β = -.20, p = .005) made significant contributions to the preferred music tempo whereas the typically performed tempo, the pitch, and the velocity did not make significant contributions (p > .05). For the unfamiliar category, the model was significant and accounted for 31% of the variance in the preferred music tempo, R2 = .31, R2 Adjusted = .30, F(6, 315) = 23.74, p = .000, f 2 = .45. The preferred tapping tempo (β = .52, p= .000), the number of notes (β = -.19, p= .001), and the pitch (β = -.10, p= .035) made significant contributions to the preferred music tempo whereas the typically performed tempo and the velocity did not make significant contributions (p > .05).
Table 1. The results of multiple regression analyses
|
all
|
familiar
|
neutral
|
unfamiliar
|
|
B
|
SE B
|
β
|
B
|
SE B
|
β
|
B
|
SE B
|
β
|
B
|
SE B
|
β
|
Variable
|
preferred tapping tempo
|
0.36
|
0.03
|
.46***
|
0.26
|
0.05
|
.32***
|
0.38
|
0.05
|
.51***
|
0.41
|
0.04
|
.52***
|
typically performed tempo
|
0.09
|
0.02
|
.15***
|
0.27
|
0.06
|
.37***
|
0.08
|
0.05
|
.16
|
0.03
|
0.03
|
.06
|
number of notes
|
-0.08
|
0.02
|
-.13***
|
0.02
|
0.04
|
.03
|
-0.11
|
0.04
|
-.20**
|
-0.14
|
0.04
|
-.19**
|
pitch
|
0.13
|
0.13
|
.04
|
0.35
|
0.27
|
.10
|
0.15
|
0.27
|
.04
|
-0.38
|
0.19
|
-.10*
|
velocity
|
0.00
|
0.05
|
.00
|
-0.04
|
0.08
|
-.04
|
0.10
|
0.10
|
.09
|
0.01
|
0.11
|
.01
|
R2
|
.26
|
.29
|
.30
|
.31
|
R2Adjusted
|
.26
|
.27
|
.28
|
.30
|
F
|
48.58***
|
16.04***
|
13.59***
|
23.74***
|
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
All analyses were conducted with forced entry algorithm on R.
|