Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of delayed auditory and visual feedback on sequence production

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study represents the first systematic comparison of the relative contributions of auditory and visual feedback to sequence production. Participants learned an isochronous melody that they performed on a keyboard and attempted to perform this sequence at a prescribed rate while auditory and visual feedback were manipulated. Delayed auditory feedback (DAF) and delayed visual feedback (DVF) both tended to slow production of the sequence. These effects were additive. There was no modulation of this effect of delay in either modality by the absence of feedback in the other. In contrast with past research, DAF did not increase timing variability, though DVF did. Motion analyses ruled out differences in salience of visual feedback between delayed and non-delayed conditions as an explanation of the effects of DVF. The results suggest that the effects of delayed feedback may be attributable to both sensorimotor interference and to conflicting information across feedback channels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Differences in mean finger length across participants were very small (SD = .43 cm) and were not significantly correlated with the effects of DAF or DVF.

References

  • Aschersleben G, Prinz W (1997) Delayed auditory feedback in synchronization. J Mot Behav 29:35–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dalla Bella S, Palmer C (2011) Rate effects on timing, key velocity, and finger kinematics in piano performance. PloS one 6:e20518

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finney SA (2001) FTAP: a Linux-based program for tapping and music experiments. Behav Res Meth Instrum Comput 33:65–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Finney SA, Palmer C (2003) Auditory feedback and memory for music performance: sound evidence for an encoding effect. Mem Cognit 31:51–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Flach R (2005) The transition from synchronization to continuation tapping. Hum Mov Sci 24:465–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson JJ (1966) The senses considered as perceptual systems. Houghton Mifflin, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Goebl W, Palmer C (2008) Tactile feedback and timing accuracy in piano performance. Exp Brain Res 186:471–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel B, Müsseler J, Aschersleben G, Prinz W (2001) The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behav Brain Sci 24:849–877

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hove MJ, Iversen JR, Zhang A, Repp BH (in press) Synchronizing with competing visual and auditory rhythms: bouncing ball meets metronome. Psychol Res

  • Howell P (2001) A model of timing interference to speech control in normal and altered listening conditions applied to the treatment of stuttering. In: Maassen B, Julstijn W, Kent R, Peters HFM, Van Lieshout PHMM (eds) Speech motor control in normal and disordered speech. Uttgeverij Vantilt, Nijmegen, pp 291–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell P, Archer A (1984) Susceptibility to the effects of delayed auditory feedback. Percept Psychophys 36:296–302

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Howell P, Sackin S (2002) Timing interference to speech in altered listening conditions. Acoust Soc Am 111:2842–2852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James W (1890) The principles of psychology, vol 2. Holt, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson G (1973) Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Percept Psychophys 14:201–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller PE, Koch I (2008) Action planning in sequential skills: relations to music performance. Q J Exp Psychol 61:275–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolers PA, Brewster JM (1985) Rhythms and responses. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 11:814–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langenberg U, Hefter H, Kessler K, Cooke J (1998) Sinusoidal forearm tracking with delayed visual feedback. I. Exp Brain Res 118:161–170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee DN, Reddish PE (1981) Plummeting gannets: a paradigm of ecological optics. Nature 293:293–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKay DG (1987) The organization of perception and action: a theory for language and other cognitive skills. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Madison G, Merker B (2004) Human sensorimotor tracking of continuous subliminal deviations from isochrony. Neurosci Lett 370:69–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Occelli V, Spence C, Zampini M (2011) Audiotactile interactions in temporal perception. Psychon Bull Rev 18:429–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Patel AD, Iversen JR, Chen Y, Repp BH (2005) The influence of metricality and modality on synchronization with a beat. Exp Brain Res 163:226–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfordresher PQ (2003) Auditory feedback in music performance: evidence for a dissociation of sequencing and timing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29:949–964

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfordresher PQ (2005) Auditory feedback in music performance: the role of melodic structure and musical skill. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:1331–1345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfordresher PQ (2006) Coordination of perception and action in music performance. Adv Cognit Psychol 2:183–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfordresher PQ (2008) Auditory feedback in music performance: the role of transition-based similarity. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 34:708–725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfordresher PQ, Dalla Bella S (2011) Delayed auditory feedback and movement. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37:566–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfordresher PQ, Kulpa JD (2011) The dynamics of disruption from altered auditory feedback: further evidence for a dissociation of sequencing and timing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37:949–967

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfordresher PQ, Palmer C (2002) Effects of delayed auditory feedback on timing of music performance. Psychol Res 66:71–79

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prinz W, Aschersleben G, Koch I (2009) Cognition and action. In: Morsella E, Bargh J, Gollwitzer PM (eds) Oxford handbook of human action. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 35–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Repp BH (1999) Effects of auditory feedback deprivation on expressive piano performance. Music Percept 16:409–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Repp BH, Penel A (2002) Auditory dominance in temporal processing: new evidence from synchronization with simultaneous visual and auditory sequences. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 28:1085–1099

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Repp BH, Penel A (2004) Rhythmic movement is attracted more strongly to auditory than to visual rhythms. Psychol Res 68:252–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith WM, McCrary JW, Smith KU (1960) Delayed visual feedback and behavior. Science 132:1013–1014

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • van den Heuvel MRC, Balasubramaniam R, Daffertshofer A, Longtin A, Beek PJ (2009) Delayed visual feedback reveals distinct time scales in balance control. Neurosci Lett 452:37–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yates AJ (1963) Delayed auditory feedback. Psychol Bull 60:213–232

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The data reported here were collected while Mr. Kulpa was a student at the University at Buffalo. This research was supported in part by National Science Foundation grant BCS-0642592. We thank Caroline Palmer, Bruno Repp, and Amir Lahav for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, New Mexico State University, 317 Science Hall, Las Cruces, NM, 88003, USA

    J. D. Kulpa

  2. Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, 355 Park Hall, Buffalo, NY, 14260, USA

    Peter Q. Pfordresher

Authors
  1. J. D. Kulpa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Q. Pfordresher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Q. Pfordresher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kulpa, J.D., Pfordresher, P.Q. Effects of delayed auditory and visual feedback on sequence production. Exp Brain Res 224, 69–77 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3289-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3289-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation