A confirmatory approach of the Luminance-Texture-Mass model for musical timbre semantics

ABSTRACT

This study presents a listening experiment designed to further examine the previously proposed luminance-texture-mass (LTM) model for timbral semantics. Thirty two musically trained listeners rated twenty four instrument tones on six predefined semantic scales, namely, brilliance, depth, roundness, warmth, fullness and richness. The selection of this limited set of descriptors was based on previous exploratory work. These six semantic scales were analysed through Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) to produce two different timbre spaces. These timbre spaces were subsequently compared for configurational and dimensional similarity with the LTM semantic space and the direct MDS perceptual space obtained with the same stimuli. The results showed that the selected six semantic scales are adequately representing the LTM model and are fair at predicting the configurations of the sounds that result from pairwise dissimilarity ratings.

References

1. H. Abdi. The RV coefficient and the congruence coefficient. In N. Salkind, editor, Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics. SAGE Publications, Inc., 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, California, 91320, United States, 2007.
2. V. Alluri and P. Toiviainen. Exploring perceptual and acoustical correlates of polyphonic timbre. Music Perception, 27(3):223--242, 2010.
3. A. Caclin, S. McAdams, B. K. Smith, and S. Winsberg. Acoustic correlates of timbre space dimensions: A confirmatory study using synthetic tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(1):471--482, July 2005.
4. P. D. Ellis. The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: Statistical Power, Meta-Analysis, and the Interpretation of Research Results, pages 31--44. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: New York, 1st edition, 2010.
5. J. C. Gower. A general coefficient of similarity and some of it's properties. Biometrics, 27(4):857--871, 1971.
6. J. C. Gower. Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika, 40(1):33--51, 1975.
7. J. C. Gower and G. B. Dijksterhuis. Procrustes Problems, pages 1--248. Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York, 2004.
8. J. M. Grey. Multidimensional perceptual scaling of musical timbres. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61:1270--1277, 1977.
9. J. M. Hajda. Analysis, Synthesis, and Perception of Musical Sounds, chapter The Effect of Dynamic Acoustical Features on Musical Timbre, pages 250--271. Springer, New York, USA, 2007.
10. P. Iverson and C. L. Krumhansl. Isolating the dynamic attributes of musical timbre. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94(5):2595--2603, 1993.
11. J. Josse and S. Holmes. Measures of dependence between random vectors and tests of independence. Literature review. arXiv:1307.7383.{stat}, 2013.
12. R. A. Kendall and E. C. Carterette. Verbal attributes of simultaneous wind instrument timbres: I. von Bismarck's adjectives. Music Percept., 10(4):445--468, 1993a.
13. R. A. Kendall and E. C. Carterette. Verbal attributes of simultaneous wind instrument timbres: II. Adjectives induced from Piston's Orchestration. Music Percept., 10(4):469--502, 1993b.
14. R. A. Kendall, E. C. Carterette, and J. M. Hajda. Perceptual and acoustical features of natural and synthetic orchestral instrument tones. Music Percept., 16:327--364, 1999.
15. T. Lokki, J. Pätynen, A. Kuusinen, H. Vertanen, and S. Tervo. Concert hall acoustics assessment with individually elicited attributes. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(2):835--849, 2011.
16. C. D. Mayer, J. Lorent, and G. W. Horgan. Exploratory analysis of multiple omics datasets using the adjusted RV coefficient. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, 10(1):1--27, 2011.
17. J. R. Miller and E. C. Carterette. Perceptual space for musical structures. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 58(3):711--720, 1975.
18. J. Oksanen. Multivariate analysis of ecological communities in R: vegan tutorial, 2013. University Oulu, Finland.
19. F. Opolko and J. Wapnick. McGill University Master Samples collection on DVD. McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada, 2006.
20. P. R. Peres-Neto and D. A. Jackson. How well do multivariate data sets match? The advantages of a Procrustean superimposition approach over the Mantel test. Oecologia, 129(2):169--178, 2001.
21. R. Plomp. Frequency Analysis and Periodicity Detection in Hearing, chapter Timbre as a multidimensional attribute of complex tones, pages 397--414. Sijthoff, Leiden, 1970.
22. R. Plomp. Aspects of Tone Sensation: A Psychophysical Study, chapter Timbre of complex tones, pages 85--110. Academic Press, London, 1976.
23. A. K. Smilde, H. a. L. Kiers, S. Bijlsma, C. M. Rubingh, and M. J. van Erk. Matrix correlations for high-dimensional data: the modified RV-coefficient. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 25(3):401--405, 2009.
24. G. von Bismarck. Timbre of steady tones: A factorial investigation of its verbal attributes. Acustica, 30:146--159, 1974.
25. H. L. F. von Helmholtz. On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music. New York: Dover (1954), 4 edition, 1877. English translation by A. J. Ellis.
26. A. Zacharakis, K. Pastiadis, and J. D. Reiss. An interlanguage study of musical timbre semantic dimensions and their acoustic correlates. Music Perception, 31(4):339--358, 2014.
27. A. Zacharakis, K. Pastiadis, and J. D. Reiss. An interlanguage unification of musical timbre: bridging semantic, perceptual and acoustic dimensions. Music Perception, 32(4):394--412, 2015.

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Arts and humanities

    • Performing arts

    • Sound and music computing

• Information systems

  • Information retrieval

    • Specialized information retrieval

      • Multimedia and multimodal retrieval

        • Music retrieval