Results

Percentages of correct responses (Table 2) and correct response times (Figure 2) were analyzed with two 2x2 ANOVAs with Tonal Relatedness (Related / Less-related) and Target Timbre (Timbre A / Timbre B) as within-participant factors.

For percentages of correct responses, accuracy was high overall (97.2 ± 5.5 %). The main effect of Tonal Relatedness was marginally significant (F(1,21) = 4.06; MSE = 19.31; p = .06): related targets tended to be judged more correctly than less-related targets. This relatedness effect was stronger for Timbre A, but the interaction between Tonal Relatedness and Target Timbre was only marginally significant (F(1,21) = 3.33; MSE = 8.54; p = .08).

For correct response times, the main effect of Tonal Relatedness was significant (F(1,21) = 7.09; MSE = 594.72; p < .05): related targets were judged significantly faster than less-related targets. The relatedness effect was only observed for targets played by Timbre A, but the interaction between Tonal Relatedness and Target Timbre was not significant (F(1,21) = 2.83; MSE = 1501.40; p = .11). The main effect of Target Timbre was significant (F(1,21) = 4.86; MSE = 3408.46; p < .05): response times were faster for Timbre B than for Timbre A.

Participants were separated into 10 moderately experienced participants (instrumental instruction = 3 to 13 years, mean = 9.0  3.3 years, median = 10 years) and 12 less-experienced participants (instrumental instruction = 0 to 1 years, mean = 0.1  0.3, median = 0 year). For correct responses and response times, ANOVAs with Musical Expertise added as between-participants factor did not reveal any additional significant effects.

Table 2. Percentages of correct responses in Experiments 1 and 2 presented as a function of tonal relatedness (related/less-related) and target timbre (timbre A, timbre B). Timbre A/Timbre B conditions were dull/bright piano (with an acoustic piano context) in Experiment 1 and “F0”/”F0+2F0” (with a F0 sine wave context) in Experiment 2. Between-participants standard errors are in brackets.
Table 2. Percentages of correct responses in Experiments 1 and 2 presented as a function of tonal relatedness (related/less-related) and target timbre (timbre A, timbre B). Timbre A/Timbre B conditions were dull/bright piano (with an acoustic piano context) in Experiment 1 and “F0”/”F0+2F0” (with a F0 sine wave context) in Experiment 2. Between-participants standard errors are in brackets.
Figure 2. Correct response times in Experiment 1 presented as a function of tonal relatedness (related/less-related) and target timbre (timbre A, timbre B). Error bars represent between-participants standard errors.