**Figure 1.**
The multitouch interface used in the experiment.

**Figure 1.**
The multitouch interface used in the experiment.

**Figure 2.**
E♭ major scale played in the scale training and immediate retention tasks.

**Figure 2.**
E♭ major scale played in the scale training and immediate retention tasks.

**Figure 3.**
E♭ arpeggio sequence played in the arpeggio training and immediate retention tasks.

**Figure 3.**
E♭ arpeggio sequence played in the arpeggio training and immediate retention tasks.

**Figure 4.**
Frère Jacques in E♭ major played in the transfer tasks.

**Figure 4.**
Frère Jacques in E♭ major played in the transfer tasks.

**Figure 5.**
The isomorphic Wicki layout. The red and green lines show the respective paths traced out by two octaves of the B♭ and E♭ major scales. The blue arrow shows the pitch axis—if the layout is rotated to make the pitch axis vertical, the pitch of every button is proportional to its height.

**Figure 5.**
The isomorphic Wicki layout. The red and green lines show the respective paths traced out by two octaves of the B♭ and E♭ major scales. The blue arrow shows the pitch axis—if the layout is rotated to make the pitch axis vertical, the pitch of every button is proportional to its height.

**Figure 6.**
The non-isomorphic Wicki-like layout. The red and green lines show the respective paths traced by two octaves of the B♭ and E♭ major scales. Note how—compared with the isomorphic version—after every two rows, the pitches are cumulatively shifted one button to the right. This means that the same spatial relationship will produce inconsistent interval sizes. For example, the button “northeast” of G${}_{4}$ is a perfect fourth (5 semitones) higher (C${}_{5}$); the button northeast of C${}_{5}$ is a perfect fifth (7 semitones) higher (G${}_{5}$). These types of inconsistencies mean there is no consistent pitch axis.

**Figure 6.**
The non-isomorphic Wicki-like layout. The red and green lines show the respective paths traced by two octaves of the B♭ and E♭ major scales. Note how—compared with the isomorphic version—after every two rows, the pitches are cumulatively shifted one button to the right. This means that the same spatial relationship will produce inconsistent interval sizes. For example, the button “northeast” of G${}_{4}$ is a perfect fourth (5 semitones) higher (C${}_{5}$); the button northeast of C${}_{5}$ is a perfect fifth (7 semitones) higher (G${}_{5}$). These types of inconsistencies mean there is no consistent pitch axis.

**Figure 7.**
The isomorphic Bosanquet layout. The red and green lines show the respective paths traced by two octaves of the B♭ and F major scales. The blue arrow shows the pitch axis—it is perfectly horizontal, so the pitch of every button is proportional to its left–right position.

**Figure 7.**
The isomorphic Bosanquet layout. The red and green lines show the respective paths traced by two octaves of the B♭ and F major scales. The blue arrow shows the pitch axis—it is perfectly horizontal, so the pitch of every button is proportional to its left–right position.

**Figure 8.**
The non-isomorphic Bosanquet-like layout. The red and green lines show the respective paths traced by two octaves of the B♭ and F major scales. Note how—compared with the isomorphic version—after every 12 columns, the pitches are cumulatively shifted northeast. This means that the same spatial relationship will produce inconsistent interval sizes. For example, the button two steps to the right of F${}_{4}$ is a major third (4 semitones) higher (A${}_{4}$); the button two steps to the right of G${}_{4}$ is a minor third (3 semitones) higher (B${\u266d}_{4}$). Such inconsistencies mean there is no consistent pitch axis.

**Figure 8.**
The non-isomorphic Bosanquet-like layout. The red and green lines show the respective paths traced by two octaves of the B♭ and F major scales. Note how—compared with the isomorphic version—after every 12 columns, the pitches are cumulatively shifted northeast. This means that the same spatial relationship will produce inconsistent interval sizes. For example, the button two steps to the right of F${}_{4}$ is a major third (4 semitones) higher (A${}_{4}$); the button two steps to the right of G${}_{4}$ is a minor third (3 semitones) higher (B${\u266d}_{4}$). Such inconsistencies mean there is no consistent pitch axis.

**Figure 9.**
Scale training task: mean Accuracy scores with 95% confidence intervals obtained from 10,000 bootstrap samples.

**Figure 9.**
Scale training task: mean Accuracy scores with 95% confidence intervals obtained from 10,000 bootstrap samples.

**Figure 10.**
Scale training task: the model’s population level effects and 95% credibility intervals (see

Table A1 for numerical values).

**Figure 10.**
Scale training task: the model’s population level effects and 95% credibility intervals (see

Table A1 for numerical values).

**Figure 11.**
Scale training task: the estimated marginal effects on Accuracy (and their 95% credibility intervals) of IsNonIsomorphic and IsBosanquet for non-musicians and musicians.

**Figure 11.**
Scale training task: the estimated marginal effects on Accuracy (and their 95% credibility intervals) of IsNonIsomorphic and IsBosanquet for non-musicians and musicians.

**Figure 12.**
Scale retention task: mean Accuracy scores with 95% confidence intervals obtained from 10,000 bootstrap samples.

**Figure 12.**
Scale retention task: mean Accuracy scores with 95% confidence intervals obtained from 10,000 bootstrap samples.

**Figure 13.**
Scale retention task: the model’s population level effects and 95% credibility intervals (see

Table A2 for numerical values).

**Figure 13.**
Scale retention task: the model’s population level effects and 95% credibility intervals (see

Table A2 for numerical values).

**Figure 14.**
Scale retention task: the estimated marginal effects on Accuracy (and their 95% credibility intervals) of IsNonIsomorphic and IsBosanquet for non-musicians and musicians.

**Figure 14.**
Scale retention task: the estimated marginal effects on Accuracy (and their 95% credibility intervals) of IsNonIsomorphic and IsBosanquet for non-musicians and musicians.

**Figure 15.**
Arpeggio training task: mean Accuracy scores with 95% confidence intervals obtained from 10,000 bootstrap samples.

**Figure 15.**
Arpeggio training task: mean Accuracy scores with 95% confidence intervals obtained from 10,000 bootstrap samples.

**Figure 16.**
Arpeggio training task: the model’s population level effects and 95% credibility intervals (see

Table A3 for numerical values).

**Figure 16.**
Arpeggio training task: the model’s population level effects and 95% credibility intervals (see

Table A3 for numerical values).

**Figure 17.**
Arpeggio training task: the estimated marginal effects on Accuracy (and their 95% credibility intervals) of IsNonIsomorphic and IsBosanquet for non-musicians and musicians.

**Figure 17.**
Arpeggio training task: the estimated marginal effects on Accuracy (and their 95% credibility intervals) of IsNonIsomorphic and IsBosanquet for non-musicians and musicians.

**Figure 18.**
Arpeggio retention task: mean Accuracy scores with 95% confidence intervals obtained from 10,000 bootstrap samples.

**Figure 18.**
Arpeggio retention task: mean Accuracy scores with 95% confidence intervals obtained from 10,000 bootstrap samples.

**Figure 19.**
Arpeggio retention task: the model’s population level effects and 95% credibility intervals (see

Table A4 for numerical values).

**Figure 19.**
Arpeggio retention task: the model’s population level effects and 95% credibility intervals (see

Table A4 for numerical values).

**Figure 20.**
Arpeggio retention task: the estimated marginal effects on Accuracy (and their 95% credibility intervals) of IsNonIsomorphic and IsBosanquet for non-musicians and musicians.

**Figure 20.**
Arpeggio retention task: the estimated marginal effects on Accuracy (and their 95% credibility intervals) of IsNonIsomorphic and IsBosanquet for non-musicians and musicians.

**Figure 21.**
Melody transfer task: mean Accuracy scores with 95% confidence intervals obtained from 10,000 bootstrap samples.

**Figure 21.**
Melody transfer task: mean Accuracy scores with 95% confidence intervals obtained from 10,000 bootstrap samples.

**Figure 22.**
Melody transfer task: the model’s population level effects and 95% credibility intervals (see

Table A5 for numerical values).

**Figure 22.**
Melody transfer task: the model’s population level effects and 95% credibility intervals (see

Table A5 for numerical values).

**Figure 23.**
Melody transfer task: the estimated marginal effects on Accuracy (and their 95% credibility intervals) of IsUntrained and IsNonIsomorphic for Bosanquet-like and Wicki-like layouts and for non-musicians and musicians.

**Figure 23.**
Melody transfer task: the estimated marginal effects on Accuracy (and their 95% credibility intervals) of IsUntrained and IsNonIsomorphic for Bosanquet-like and Wicki-like layouts and for non-musicians and musicians.

**Table 1.**
Scale training task: directional hypothesis tests for the effects of IsNonIsomorphic, IsBosanquet, and IsMusician, LayoutNo, PerfNo, and their interaction LayoutNo:PerfNo across the conditions shown in parentheses.

**Table 1.**
Scale training task: directional hypothesis tests for the effects of IsNonIsomorphic, IsBosanquet, and IsMusician, LayoutNo, PerfNo, and their interaction LayoutNo:PerfNo across the conditions shown in parentheses.

Hypothesis | Estimate | Est.Error | CI.Lower | CI.Upper | Evid.Ratio | Post.Prob | Star |
---|

IsNonIso (IsMus = 0, IsBos = 0) < 0 | −0.25 | 0.18 | −Inf | 0.05 | 10.76 | 0.92 | |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 0, IsBos = 1) > 0 | 0.53 | 0.22 | 0.18 | Inf | 155.86 | 0.99 | * |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 1, IsBos = 0) < 0 | −0.41 | 0.23 | −Inf | −0.05 | 27.47 | 0.96 | * |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 1, IsBos = 1) > 0 | 0.38 | 0.25 | −0.03 | Inf | 14.66 | 0.94 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 0) > 0 | 0.88 | 0.46 | 0.11 | Inf | 30.87 | 0.97 | * |

IsBos (IsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 1) > 0 | 1.66 | 0.42 | 0.96 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

IsBos (IsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 0) > 0 | 0.09 | 0.56 | −0.81 | Inf | 1.27 | 0.56 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 1) > 0 | 0.88 | 0.51 | 0.05 | Inf | 25.06 | 0.96 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 0) > 0 | 2.31 | 0.52 | 1.46 | Inf | 7999.00 | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 1) > 0 | 2.15 | 0.49 | 1.35 | Inf | 7999.00 | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 0) > 0 | 1.52 | 0.57 | 0.59 | Inf | 209.53 | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 1) > 0 | 1.37 | 0.54 | 0.49 | Inf | 199.00 | 1.00 | * |

LayoutNo (IsMus = 0) > 0 | 1.68 | 0.18 | 1.38 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

LayoutNo (IsMus = 1) > 0 | 0.74 | 0.21 | 0.39 | Inf | 7999.00 | 1.00 | * |

PerfNo (IsMus = 0) > 0 | 0.48 | 0.08 | 0.35 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

PerfNo (IsMus = 1) > 0 | 0.30 | 0.08 | 0.16 | Inf | 3999.00 | 1.00 | * |

LayoutNo:PerfNo (IsMus = 0) < 0 | −0.41 | 0.10 | −Inf | −0.25 | Inf | 1.00 | * |

LayoutNo:PerfNo (IsMus = 1) < 0 | −0.11 | 0.11 | −Inf | 0.08 | 4.69 | 0.82 | |

**Table 2.**
Scale retention task: directional hypothesis tests for the effects of IsNonIsomorphic, IsBosanquet, and IsMusician, LayoutNo, PerfNo, and their interaction LayoutNo:PerfNo across the conditions shown in parentheses.

**Table 2.**
Scale retention task: directional hypothesis tests for the effects of IsNonIsomorphic, IsBosanquet, and IsMusician, LayoutNo, PerfNo, and their interaction LayoutNo:PerfNo across the conditions shown in parentheses.

Hypothesis | Estimate | Est.Error | CI.Lower | CI.Upper | Evid.Ratio | Post.Prob | Star |
---|

IsNonIso (IsMus = 0, IsBos = 0) < 0 | −0.21 | 0.25 | −Inf | 0.22 | 3.98 | 0.80 | |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 0, IsBos = 1) > 0 | 0.27 | 0.28 | −0.21 | Inf | 4.70 | 0.82 | |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 1, IsBos = 0) < 0 | −0.19 | 0.28 | −Inf | 0.27 | 3.11 | 0.76 | |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 1, IsBos = 1) > 0 | 0.29 | 0.31 | −0.22 | Inf | 4.69 | 0.82 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 0) > 0 | 0.24 | 0.36 | −0.35 | Inf | 2.92 | 0.74 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 1) > 0 | 0.71 | 0.39 | 0.07 | Inf | 28.52 | 0.97 | * |

IsBos (IsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 0) > 0 | −0.15 | 0.43 | −0.84 | Inf | 0.57 | 0.36 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 1) > 0 | 0.33 | 0.44 | −0.39 | Inf | 3.47 | 0.78 | |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 0) > 0 | 1.26 | 0.41 | 0.59 | Inf | 399.00 | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 1) > 0 | 1.28 | 0.45 | 0.55 | Inf | 499.00 | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 0) > 0 | 0.88 | 0.47 | 0.12 | Inf | 32.20 | 0.97 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 1) > 0 | 0.90 | 0.48 | 0.10 | Inf | 30.37 | 0.97 | * |

LayoutNo (IsMus = 0) > 0 | 0.96 | 0.21 | 0.61 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

LayoutNo (IsMus = 1) > 0 | 0.89 | 0.23 | 0.51 | Inf | 7999.00 | 1.00 | * |

PerfNo (IsMus = 0) < 0 | −0.01 | 0.13 | −Inf | 0.20 | 1.18 | 0.54 | |

PerfNo (IsMus = 1) > 0 | 0.65 | 0.14 | 0.42 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

LayoutNo:PerfNo (IsMus = 0) > 0 | 0.04 | 0.17 | −0.24 | Inf | 1.39 | 0.58 | |

LayoutNo:PerfNo (IsMus = 1) < 0 | −0.38 | 0.20 | −Inf | −0.05 | 32.47 | 0.97 | * |

**Table 3.**
Arpeggio training task: directional hypothesis tests for the effects of IsNonIsomorphic, IsBosanquet, and IsMusician, LayoutNo, PerfNo, and their interaction LayoutNo:PerfNo, across the conditions shown in parentheses.

**Table 3.**
Arpeggio training task: directional hypothesis tests for the effects of IsNonIsomorphic, IsBosanquet, and IsMusician, LayoutNo, PerfNo, and their interaction LayoutNo:PerfNo, across the conditions shown in parentheses.

Hypothesis | Estimate | Est.Error | CI.Lower | CI.Upper | Evid.Ratio | Post.Prob | Star |
---|

IsNonIso (IsMus = 0, IsBos = 0) > 0 | 0.27 | 0.24 | −0.13 | Inf | 6.98 | 0.87 | |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 0, IsBos = 1) > 0 | 0.68 | 0.29 | 0.20 | Inf | 99.00 | 0.99 | * |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 1, IsBos = 0) > 0 | 0.24 | 0.28 | −0.21 | Inf | 4.25 | 0.81 | |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 1, IsBos = 1) > 0 | 0.82 | 0.31 | 0.32 | Inf | 204.13 | 1.00 | * |

IsBos (IsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 0) < 0 | −0.23 | 0.44 | −Inf | 0.49 | 2.32 | 0.70 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 1) > 0 | 0.17 | 0.47 | −0.60 | Inf | 1.83 | 0.65 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 0) > 0 | 0.69 | 0.54 | −0.20 | Inf | 8.80 | 0.90 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 1) > 0 | 1.26 | 0.56 | 0.36 | Inf | 83.21 | 0.99 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 0) > 0 | 1.92 | 0.49 | 1.13 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 1) > 0 | 1.89 | 0.52 | 1.06 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 0) > 0 | 2.84 | 0.55 | 1.93 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 1) > 0 | 2.98 | 0.57 | 2.02 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

LayoutNo (IsMus = 0) > 0 | 0.69 | 0.23 | 0.30 | Inf | 570.43 | 1.00 | * |

LayoutNo (IsMus = 1) > 0 | 1.09 | 0.25 | 0.68 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

PerfNo (IsMus = 0) > 0 | 0.29 | 0.09 | 0.13 | Inf | 1332.33 | 1.00 | * |

PerfNo (IsMus = 1) > 0 | 0.53 | 0.07 | 0.41 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

LayoutNo:PerfNo (IsMus = 0) > 0 | 0.08 | 0.15 | −0.15 | Inf | 2.53 | 0.72 | |

LayoutNo:PerfNo (IsMus = 1) < 0 | −0.12 | 0.15 | −Inf | 0.12 | 4.15 | 0.81 | |

**Table 4.**
Arpeggio retention task: directional hypothesis tests for the effects of IsNonIsomorphic, IsBosanquet, and IsMusician, LayoutNo, PerfNo, and their interaction LayoutNo:PerfNo across the conditions shown in parentheses.

**Table 4.**
Arpeggio retention task: directional hypothesis tests for the effects of IsNonIsomorphic, IsBosanquet, and IsMusician, LayoutNo, PerfNo, and their interaction LayoutNo:PerfNo across the conditions shown in parentheses.

Hypothesis | Estimate | Est.Error | CI.Lower | CI.Upper | Evid.Ratio | Post.Prob | Star |
---|

IsNonIso (IsMus = 0, IsBos = 0) > 0 | 0.06 | 0.16 | −0.20 | Inf | 1.87 | 0.65 | |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 0, IsBos = 1) > 0 | 0.45 | 0.19 | 0.14 | Inf | 116.65 | 0.99 | * |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 1, IsBos = 0) < 0 | −0.56 | 0.20 | −Inf | −0.23 | 295.30 | 1.00 | * |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 1, IsBos = 1) > 0 | 0.67 | 0.21 | 0.33 | Inf | 2665.67 | 1.00 | * |

IsBos (IsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 0) < 0 | −0.30 | 0.28 | −Inf | 0.16 | 5.97 | 0.86 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 1) > 0 | 0.10 | 0.31 | −0.41 | Inf | 1.65 | 0.62 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 0) < 0 | −0.36 | 0.34 | −Inf | 0.20 | 6.17 | 0.86 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 1) > 0 | 0.87 | 0.40 | 0.21 | Inf | 58.26 | 0.98 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 0) > 0 | 1.71 | 0.31 | 1.21 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 1) > 0 | 1.10 | 0.35 | 0.52 | Inf | 1332.33 | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 0) > 0 | 1.65 | 0.34 | 1.09 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 1) > 0 | 1.87 | 0.39 | 1.23 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

LayoutNo (IsMus = 0) > 0 | 0.44 | 0.13 | 0.22 | Inf | 3999.00 | 1.00 | * |

LayoutNo (IsMus = 1) > 0 | 0.61 | 0.16 | 0.36 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

PerfNo (IsMus = 0) < 0 | −0.07 | 0.13 | −Inf | 0.14 | 2.44 | 0.71 | |

PerfNo (IsMus = 1) > 0 | 0.29 | 0.15 | 0.06 | Inf | 47.78 | 0.98 | * |

LayoutNo:PerfNo (IsMus = 0) < 0 | −0.16 | 0.14 | −Inf | 0.06 | 7.76 | 0.89 |

LayoutNo:PerfNo (IsMus = 1) > 0 | 0.30 | 0.15 | 0.05 | Inf | 40.03 | 0.98 | * |

**Table 5.**
Melody transfer task: directional hypothesis tests for the effects of IsNonIsomorphic, IsBosanquet, and IsMusician, LayoutNo, PerfNo, and their interaction LayoutNo:PerfNo across the conditions shown in parentheses.

**Table 5.**
Melody transfer task: directional hypothesis tests for the effects of IsNonIsomorphic, IsBosanquet, and IsMusician, LayoutNo, PerfNo, and their interaction LayoutNo:PerfNo across the conditions shown in parentheses.

Hypothesis | Estimate | Est.Error | CI.Lower | CI.Upper | Evid.Ratio | Post.Prob | Star |
---|

IsNonIso (IsMus = 0, IsBos = 0, IsUnTra = 0) < 0 | −0.16 | 0.12 | −Inf | 0.03 | 10.61 | 0.91 | |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 0, IsBos = 1, IsUnTra = 0) < 0 | −0.05 | 0.15 | −Inf | 0.19 | 1.70 | 0.63 | |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 1, IsBos = 0, IsUnTra = 0) < 0 | −0.09 | 0.13 | −Inf | 0.11 | 3.18 | 0.76 | |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 1, IsBos = 1, IsUnTra = 0) < 0 | −0.25 | 0.14 | −Inf | −0.01 | 23.10 | 0.96 | * |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 0, IsBos = 0, IsUnTra = 1) > 0 | 0.08 | 0.14 | −0.16 | Inf | 2.36 | 0.70 | |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 0, IsBos = 1, IsUnTra = 1) > 0 | 0.32 | 0.19 | 0.01 | Inf | 21.04 | 0.95 | * |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 1, IsBos = 0, IsUnTra = 1) < 0 | −0.45 | 0.17 | −Inf | −0.17 | 209.53 | 1.00 | * |

IsNonIso (IsMus = 1, IsBos = 1, IsUnTra = 1) < 0 | −0.34 | 0.18 | −Inf | −0.05 | 31.52 | 0.97 | * |

IsBos (IsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 0, IsUnTra = 0) < 0 | −0.13 | 0.29 | −Inf | 0.35 | 2.07 | 0.67 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 1, IsUnTra = 0) < 0 | −0.02 | 0.30 | −Inf | 0.48 | 1.08 | 0.52 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 0, IsUnTra = 0) < 0 | −0.36 | 0.35 | −Inf | 0.20 | 5.76 | 0.85 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 1, IsUnTra = 0) < 0 | −0.52 | 0.35 | −Inf | 0.06 | 13.39 | 0.93 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 0, IsUnTra = 1) > 0 | 0.02 | 0.29 | −0.47 | Inf | 1.14 | 0.53 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 1, IsUnTra = 1) > 0 | 0.26 | 0.30 | −0.24 | Inf | 4.33 | 0.81 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 0, IsUnTra = 1) < 0 | −0.09 | 0.41 | −Inf | 0.59 | 1.39 | 0.58 | |

IsBos (IsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 1, IsUnTra = 1) < 0 | −0.30 | 0.35 | −Inf | 0.27 | 4.24 | 0.81 | |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 0, IsUnTra = 0) > 0 | 2.12 | 0.32 | 1.59 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 1, IsUnTra = 0) > 0 | 2.19 | 0.33 | 1.65 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 0, IsUnTra = 0) > 0 | 1.89 | 0.36 | 1.30 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 1, IsUnTra = 0) > 0 | 1.69 | 0.37 | 1.09 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 0, IsUnTra = 1) > 0 | 2.64 | 0.34 | 2.09 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 1, IsUnTra = 1) > 0 | 2.11 | 0.33 | 1.56 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 0, IsUnTra = 1) > 0 | 2.20 | 0.36 | 1.59 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 1, IsUnTra = 1) > 0 | 1.54 | 0.37 | 0.93 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

LayoutNo (IsMus = 0) > 0 | 0.55 | 0.11 | 0.37 | Inf | Inf | 1.00 | * |

LayoutNo (IsMus = 1) > 0 | 0.32 | 0.11 | 0.14 | Inf | 379.95 | 1.00 | * |

PerfNo (IsMus = 0) > 0 | 0.17 | 0.05 | 0.09 | Inf | 7999.00 | 1.00 | * |

PerfNo (IsMus = 1) > 0 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.03 | Inf | 70.43 | 0.99 | * |

LayoutNo:PerfNo (IsMus = 0) < 0 | −0.11 | 0.06 | −Inf | −0.01 | 33.48 | 0.97 | * |

LayoutNo:PerfNo (IsMus = 1) < 0 | −0.01 | 0.06 | −Inf | 0.09 | 1.42 | 0.59 | |

**Table 6.**
Participant preferences for pitch layouts.

**Table 6.**
Participant preferences for pitch layouts.

Layout Type | | Number of Participants |
---|

| | Musicians | Non-Musicians |
---|

Isomorphic | Wicki-like | 9 | 12 |

| Bosanquet-like | 4 | 4 |

Non-isomorphic | Wicki-like | 0 | 2 |

| Bosanquet-like | 3 | 8 |

No preference | | 8 | 8 |

No specification made | | 1 | 7 |

**Table 7.**
Example statements for the sub-themes under Reason for layout preference.

**Table 7.**
Example statements for the sub-themes under Reason for layout preference.

Sub-Theme | Example Statement | Number of Statements |
---|

Mus | Non-Mus |
---|

Layout structure
| “I found it’s more structured as to the rows 4 and then 3 and 4 before you change into the next note.” (ID1). | 15 | 8 |

Intuitiveness
| “I felt like I could feel the notes better in this layout…Like the way my brain put together like playing the notes and the sounds—it felt easier to do in this layout basically.” (ID14). | 4 | 5 |

Similarity to piano
| “It was kind of like the piano, so it was easier to remember I guess because I could do it with my fingers in the same way as for scales.” (ID22). | 2 | 0 |

Identifying reference note
| “Well for the first one [Wicki-like non-isomorphic],…I couldn’t find the reference note. For the second one [Wicki-like isomorphic] it was easier to know where the C was I guess or whatever the tonic was.” (ID7). | 2 | 3 |

Practice effects
| “I think because I did it the first time, so the second time was like kinda the same thing but I had more practice. I guess I was more familiar with it by then.” (ID44). | 5 | 15 |

**Table 8.**
Number of statements for each sub-theme of Reason for layout preference according to preferred layout.

**Table 8.**
Number of statements for each sub-theme of Reason for layout preference according to preferred layout.

Sub-Theme | Isomorphic | Non-Isomorphic | No Preference |
---|

Wicki-Like | Bosanquet-Like | Wicki-Like | Bosanquet-Like | |
---|

Layout structure | 10 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 5 |

Practice effects | 6 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 2 |

Intuitiveness | 3 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 |

Similarity to piano | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

Identifying reference note | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |

**Table 9.**
Example statements from the sub-themes under Challenging aspects.

**Table 9.**
Example statements from the sub-themes under Challenging aspects.

Sub-Theme | Example Statement | Number of Statements |
---|

Layout structure
| But just trying to figure out where all the notes were at, it was more of a challenge of making something work. Like where the intervals were.” (ID24). | 20 |

Familiarity of interface
| But umm for this sort of task and especially when it’s an interface that I’m not familiar with…because it’s so alien to me, it’s not as simple to pick up.” (ID15). | 8 |

Pace of AV demonstration
| I think sometimes the keys, with the highlighting, it flashed a little fast, like you’re trying to catch up with it.” (ID2). | 2 |