Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review commissioned by MDPI publishing house

Review for the journal: Arts

Title of manuscript: Variable properties of auditory scene analysis in music

 

 

1.    Language

The language of the manuscript is very good, concise, comprehensible, and communicative, with no factual or technical errors, and appropriate to the scientific discipline and the arts at the same time. Reading the manuscript as a reviewer, one can see that the Author/Authors has/have prepared the article very well in terms of language, and it does not contain any shortcomings, errors or unclear formulations.

 

2.    Structure of the work and logic

The study is divided into nine parts structured as subsections. The subsections are appropriately titled given the introduced elements — each subsection provides relevant introductory and supplemental information and is very well written. The study consists of 20 pages in total.

 

3.    The review

First of all, the scientific paper submitted for review is very well written from the standpoint of scientific standards and knowledge content, as well as in terms of structural, formal, and editorial qualities. Indeed, I have seen very few manuscripts in my life that are so well developed and ready to be published immediately.

 

The transfer of Gestalt psychology — aided by simple tones used in laboratory research — into the musical arts is, first and foremost, a very difficult task. I am very familiar with Bregman’s main work (over 650 pages) as well as his other later and earlier works. This is the first such good, original and even pioneering application of this method to the analysis of pieces of music, which is why I would like to highlight several particular aspects discussed by the Author/Authors that deserve mention:

— first of all, the language of the argument is clear, professional and comprehensible, which makes the scientific paper very lucid. As a person who is very familiar with Bregman’s writings, I can say that the scientific paper submitted for review is easier to read than the literature the Authors cite. Major congratulations are due to the Author/Authors because they really deftly tackle the highly difficult descriptive elements — which is of paramount value to the reader as the difficult subject matter discussed in the manuscript may be understood,

- the paper is intended for a broad audience: professional musicians (composers, music theorists, sound directors, musical performers: instrumentalists, conductors) and ordinary listeners — which cannot be underestimated. The paper is primarily aimed at persons who wonder how they hear and how advanced music is organised in their minds,

- the paper points out the practical possibilities of auditory scene analysis, which is, in fact, performed by everyone to a greater or lesser extent, from which it follows that the submitted scientific paper is highly universal.

 

The substantive content represents superior quality. The description of the phenomena and the selection of relevant literature from earlier and more recent works demonstrate that the authors are thoroughly conversant with the subject of auditory scene analysis. At the outset, it may seem strange that the Author/Authors studied their own listening experiences and not, for example, different groups of subjects; however, this is indicative of a substantial research awareness on the part of the Authors, and it is highly appropriate because:

- the Author/Authors opted for a case study, which is a very good move for very complex analyses (as in this case), where one and the same sound material can assume the shape of very distinct figures in the listener’s mind, another thing is own research by the Authors, who arrive at specific conclusions based on their own previous experiences. Since a case study is a research method for exploring and analysing a particular phenomenon, event, or situation in a specific case at hand, I believe that this is the right approach in this instance,

- being professionals, the Author/Authors had previously studied several groups of people (as evidenced by the anonymised data, which will be added after the review) and were able to draw pertinent conclusions,

- the Authors ensured that the listening conditions were uniform and that the sound material was very varied, but it was played and received in the same manner using the same tools, which is very important.

 

The Author/Authors eloquently demonstrate/s that in the case of various composers (F. Chopin, A. Guilmant, and J.S. Bach) and their works, we can speak of the occurrence of perceptual streams in music. As if that were not enough, that occurrence itself is the first element of innovation, while the second element that adds even more to the revelatory character of this study is that the properties of human hearing can produce not two (as has been most often asserted to date) but more mental figures. This is the kind of innovative approach that is hardly ever encountered in the musical arts.

It is noteworthy that illustrations are used to explore the issue, as most people are visual types; hence, Fig. 9 is accompanied by descriptions based on a pattern-graphic that may elicit various mental figures — I think this is a good example which will enable those who are new to the subject to comprehend it. Then, in Figs. 10 – 15, we have a certain phrase (Ludwig van Beethoven) which the Author/Authors analyse/s in various contexts —this is also a great teaching material to introduce the subject matter with which the Author/Authors is/are concerned, plus it can be easily internalised by the reader.

The excerpts presented (described exposure to the recordings and the score) and the instruction that one should first listen to the recordings and possibly use the score later reveal how the Authors made efforts for every aspect of this study to be comprehensible, measurable and to offer the reader an answer to the basic question posed in this work, namely, that acoustic stimuli can be understood in a variety of ways. Musical works, more complex than simple laboratory tones, can evoke richer mental images with proper auditory training. Initially, it is important to acknowledge certain perceptual phenomena, which can be learned and recognised.

 

I read the manuscript with great interest twice and was very impressed with the paper. In the second reading, I tried to identify any possible flaws or shortcomings in the text, but I did not find any.

 

CONCLUSIONS

With peace of mind and joy, I give the text entitled Variable properties of auditory scene analysis in music a POSITIVE review. The submitted text presented is innovative. It overcomes certain stereotypes that have been present in the scientific literature for years, and it cites the experiments involving the authors themselves, which — supported by their previous research — are appropriate and sufficient. It should also be noted that the paper does not present the data in the way we are accustomed to, which is why it is VALUABLE, suggesting a departure from the paradigms taught, e.g., in music schools, where a work may be wrongly interpreted because it is analysed uniformly and uncritically in the manner that the teacher was taught. I recommend this text be published unchanged, as it is correctly written in both the areas of music (art) and science. I congratulate the author(s) on their idea and research and their new approach, which clearly demonstrates the existence of different auditory variations of the same acoustic reality. The text in question will be a valuable contribution to the development of culture and art for all people because each of us perceives and organises sound stimuli via hearing. The text can be recommended as a knowledge enrichment tool for students of music as well as those whose speciality is associated with auditory practice (acoustics, medicine, psychology, etc.).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for the time devoted to the review, the words of support, the positive evaluation, and the thorough examination of the topic. Thank you very much.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the scientific article titled: Variable properties of auditory scene analysis in music

 

 

Summary

The paper submitted for review is a highly relevant compendium of knowledge concerning how various perceptual figures are created in the mind through the integration and segregation of perceptual streams reaching the listener. The article is pioneering and innovative because psychoacoustic studies to date have been concerned with sterile conditions, which did not resemble music and works of music (most often, those were perceptual analyses of several simple tones that have no greater significance in musical structures). However, in this paper such issues are fully examined with respect to musical art, with pieces of music analysed in this manner, which is a very valuable element for the art. The second aspect involves the formation of perceptual variants, of which there may be more than two—this is a valuable discovery since psychoacoustics has distinguished only two mental states, i.e. integration and segregation of sounds into streams. In this case, the authors distinguish more mental figures emerging from only two main states—which is well documented in the music literature cited. The authors have demonstrated that the segregation and integration of sounds into perceptual streams may be variously interpreted by humans so that a range of mental figures which assume different shapes may arise on the mental plane.

 

Main review:

Merits of the paper:

- Variable properties of auditory scene analysis in music was written in excellent English. First of all, the language is scientific, professional, simple and, at the same time, it is comprehensible, which is important given the difficult subject matter that the authors address,

- the structure of the article, the subsections, their titles, the keywords, the main title, and scientific literature—all of these elements are correct and indicate the very good substantive background of the authors. The structure adopted for the paper is logical and sensibly arranged, making it a very good read;

- the value of the works cited is very high. In my opinion, the authors have drawn on the most important works in this field of knowledge, i.e. the books/studies by the classics (including Bregman), the more recent interpretations by other researchers, as well as entirely new articles that may contribute valuable elements to the paper. The analysis of the literature is complete and comprehensive, with many interesting works included, increasing the scientific value of this paper;

- the analysis of the literature was conducted properly and in-depth, revealing a considerable knowledge gap in the field. This gap enabled the authors to fill that deficit with their research. Identified by the authors, the gap in previously published studies shows that the paper in question is not derivative but creative in the full sense of the word, and the extensive literature overview only enhances the quality of the content in this study;

- the research methodology is correct. It may seem somewhat surprising at first since the authors conducted a listening study on themselves, but this is a case study and, as we know of studies of this type, the respondent’s auditory education and thorough knowledge of such issues in practical application (listening) is crucial during analyses. Moreover, music theorists, for example, analyse scores similarly using their knowledge without conducting extensive social research, which is correct. In addition, composers publishing their scores do not consult with anyone else because otherwise, it would not be their independent work. To sum up: the authors—as experts—were able to undergo the tests and identify new elements that would not have been noted during group studies (even despite having a background in music, as not everyone may have the ability to analyse auditory musical material from such a particular angle—such an ability requires more extensive, non-standard training, i.e. not the kind provided in music schools). In addition, the authors are also going to disclose other experiments they conducted earlier after they have been reviewed, which will certainly add to the results obtained in this scientific work,

- the authors show that individual factors have the largest impact on the results of the experiments in this study. Our opinion, which seems most appropriate in this case, is in line with the authors, who demonstrated that the interpretations of sounds and music may vary, which validates the adopted methodology.

- the paper is innovative and pioneering. It introduces new aspects to the already established theory of Bregman, skilfully applying that theory to musical art. On the one hand, this is a difficult task for the authors, who handled it brilliantly, yet on the other hand, reading the article requires a certain preparation and a change in the evaluation approach: from the traditional approach to the alternative suggested by the authors. This is a very important aspect that must be in place in order to situate the paper in the new conceptual context properly. I would also like to note the courage of the authors, who present something completely different in the context of an already known theory, as a result of which they may be misunderstood and criticised, but I believe that there would be no scientific progress without a different approach and such significant research studies. The second aspect shows that our perceptions do not have to be exclusively twofold and this has been proven. This matter is a very important part of the research behind this paper, as musicians (the reviewer qualifies in this group) are exposed to multiple works of musical works during concerts or playback—but we often experience many transient states—various interpretations of performers and audiences. As it is, the two best known—segregation and integration—are discussed in literature most often, but the musical material is much more complex than the traditional view of Bregman’s theory, which is why people can interpret music in different ways, showing how music and aesthetic emotion can influence interpretations. All that information may be found in this one paper, which deserves special recognition.

 

Shortcomings of the paper:

- none found, the paper has been written very well.

 

Aim of the paper:

The paper has a clearly stated research objective, which concerns the interpretation of sound stimuli received by the listener. The authors make it clear that such inquiry bears the imprint of individual personal characteristics, as they conducted their research on themselves as experts in the field and used their previous research with other groups. The article demonstrates a departure from the dualism found everywhere, where every problem can be split into two elements, e.g. good, bad, positive, and negative, including segregation and integration; admittedly, these are two states, but in the mind, they can function together, jointly or separately, so that we may experience music in different ways and at different levels of cognition, which is particularly important.

 

Conclusions:

The study submitted for review is written correctly. It has all the characteristics of scientificity, and the research (as a self-experiment, a case study) is pertinent, making the method for the study appropriate and sufficient. The innovative quality of the study is very substantial: the application of Bregman’s theory to music and the multivariate nature of the insights—this is something that does occur, but no one has been able to tackle it the right way. The paper is very good and fitting for a journal entitled Arts. My review is thus positive, and I recommend the paper for publication, as it meets all the requirements—both technical and substantive—for a highly innovative scientific article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for the time devoted to the review, the words of support, the positive evaluation, and the thorough examination of the topic. Thank you very much.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As stated in the text, « The principal aim of this article is to demonstrate that identical acoustic stimuli, stripped of performance-related variables, can still evoke complex auditory interpretations. »  The article is well-written, well-documented, and well-argued. It enhances some relevant aspects of the mechanisms of musical perception, not only in connection with a sequence of stimuli but also in the perception of stratified and musically complex sound streams. The musical examples (Beethoven’s Waldstein, some Studies by Chopin, Bach’s Organ Sonata in d minor, and Alexandre Guilmant’s Organ Sonata op. 42, no. 1) indicate the complexity of the musical material under investigation. The research results are convincing and can certainly be integrated, as already indicated in the text, into future research that further enhances the perceptive complexities and multimodalities of listening and interpretation. 

To complete the argument, one can ask whether the research results would be the same if the musical examples did not present a ‘streaming’ form. We can ask ourselves whether more ‘disseminated,’ ‘scattered’ musical writing (scores by Webern, Stockhausen, or Boulez) can help or impede the perception of a sound aggregate and stratification of streams. In fact, the examples used make the idea of ​​a stream of notes coincide with a ‘perceptive’ stream. One may wonder whether the tonal system, so well represented by the examples chosen, does or does not help the integrated perception of the sound layers. Perhaps it can be useful to distinguish what concerns the perceptive mechanisms of one or more sound streams on the one hand and stratified writing as a deliberate compositional choice developed by the composer on the other (the case of Bach is exemplary, especially in the sound stream from bar 17 to bar 23, from the b flat raising to the a in the upper parts: This stream constitutes a sort of hidden texture strategically dissimulated by the composer).

 

Author Response

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for all the valuable suggestions and comments, as well as for the thorough and in-depth review of my work. All the insightful recommendations have, of course, been incorporated into my manuscript, for which I am particularly grateful, as they have significantly broadened the scope and deepened the content of the article. I would also like to thank you for the time and effort dedicated to reviewing this manuscript, which has greatly contributed to enhancing the quality of my work.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of this paper is noteworthy. It gives reason to raise questions about the experimental design and may contribute to the research on auditory and music perception. For that to obtain, the paper needs minor revisions. 

The illustrations of section 4 are helpful. But I recommend to use colors or dashed lines to give the reader an insight of what the difference in auditory streaming is like. 

The section 7  presents the idiographic description of alternative perceptions of short musical excerpts. The Author should consider to spell out the competing grouping mechanisms that enable the listener to switch between them. Thus the description would sound justified by being founded on specifiable auditory stream strategies.

In general, it is advisable to set a principled way to lay out the illustrations which should convey the perceptual partitions of the musical pieces. Different partitions need to be shown by graphic notations with an assigned meaning. Take the case of graphs or diagrams in general. Indeedm some musical and psychological theories have made use of them.

Finally, much care should be taken to reducing 'multivariant' perception to figure/ground bistable phenomena. First, one should not take for granted that the figure/ground segregation as such can be extended from visual to auditory perception. Second, 'multivariance' can be reduced to competing grouping mechanisms. The visual case made by figures 1-9 can be accounted for in terms of tilings with different orders. Not to mention the role played by phenomenal transparency. Besides, Rubin showed that figure/ground segregation and multi-stability itself do not depend on attentional mechanisms. Perceptual pop out and attentional selection do interact, hence the effort to distinguish their effects. 

Please,

• replace 'perceptor' with 'perceiver/listener',  
• revise 'own research' in the title of section 7,
• check 'organist' (line 230).

 

     

Author Response

Thank you for all the advice, suggestions, and assistance, as well as for the thorough review of the text.
I sincerely appreciate the positive review and the time devoted to reading my manuscript.

Revisions:

• I have replaced the term "perceptor" with "perceiver/listener."
• I have changed the title of section 7 from "Own Research" to "Author's Analysis."
• I have substituted the term "organist" with "musician."
• I have added new literature describing the relevant phenomena.
• I have included a description of alternative ways of perceiving short musical fragments, outlining competing grouping mechanisms that allow the listener to switch between different interpretations. This addition provides a rationale based on specific auditory stream perception strategies.
• I have defined the term "phenomenal transparency" and related it to music.
• I have noted the need for caution when reducing "multistable" perception to figure-ground bistable phenomena, as one should not assume that figure-ground segregation can be directly transferred from visual to auditory perception. I have also described competing grouping mechanisms in music.
• The illustrations in section 4 have been improved—they now include red highlights to prevent them from blending with the background.
• I believe that musical scores are the most effective way to present these concepts to musicians, and there is no need to modify the compositional notation, as it would introduce unnecessary changes. Combining computer graphics with longer musical examples is not straightforward; therefore, this element has been left unchanged. Of course, referring to individual measures makes sense, but it is challenging when dealing with larger sections of compositions.