Close printable page
Recommendation

Music is appreciated cross-modally, but is culture- and context-dependent

ORCID_LOGO based on reviews by Kyoshiro Sasaki and 1 anonymous reviewer
A recommendation of:
STAGE 2
picture

Sight vs. sound judgments of music performance depend on relative performer quality: Cross-cultural evidence from classical piano and Tsugaru shamisen competitions [Stage 2 Registered Report]

Gakuto Chiba, Yuto Ozaki, Shinya Fujii, Patrick E. Savage https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xky4j version 11

Abstract

EN
AR
ES
FR
HI
JA
PT
RU
ZH-CN
Submission: posted 30 November 2022
Recommendation: posted 13 February 2023, validated 13 February 2023
Cite this recommendation as:
Yamada, Y. (2023) Music is appreciated cross-modally, but is culture- and context-dependent. Peer Community in Registered Reports, 100351. https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.rr.100351

This is a stage 2 based on:

Sight vs. sound in the judgment of music performance: Cross-cultural evidence from classical piano and Tsugaru shamisen competitions
Gakuto Chiba, Yuto Ozaki, Shinya Fujii, Patrick E. Savage
https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xky4j

Recommendation

Music is not merely limited to the aural experience we garner through our auditory faculties, as commonly perceived. Rather, various studies have explored the cross-modal impact of visual stimuli on the evaluation of music. These previous studies have been confined exclusively to Western music. Hence, Chiba et al. (2023) designed a study with a focus on the Tsugaru shamisen, a renowned folk instrument indigenous to Japan, and of which the first author is an outstanding player.

The study methodology was an improved version of previous endeavors, wherein actual musical material sourced from concours performances was displayed through audio-only, video-only or both modalities. A sample of Japanese participants were then asked to evaluate the concours performances on both the piano and the Tsugaru shamisen. The results, obtained through pre-registered protocols, revealed that for both concours performances, the participants displayed a cross-modal impact of visual information on their aural evaluation of music. This effect was also found to be contingent on cultural and contextual factors. These outcomes furnish valuable evidence towards the generalizability of the interplay between sight and sound in the assessment of music.
 
The study underwent rigorous peer-review processes in both Stage 1 and Stage 2, with three experts specializing in Japanese folk music, open science, and statistics, respectively, providing their critical assessments. Following multiple rounds of revision, the final manuscript was deemed fit for recommendation.
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/ry2b6
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
 
References
 
Chiba G., Ozaki Y., Fujii S., & Savage P.E. (2023). Sight vs. sound judgments of music performance depend on relative performer quality: Cross-cultural evidence from classical piano and Tsugaru shamisen competitions [Stage 2 Registered Report]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xky4j
Conflict of interest:
The recommender in charge of the evaluation of the article and the reviewers declared that they have no conflict of interest (as defined in the code of conduct of PCI) with the authors or with the content of the article.

Reviews

Evaluation round #1

DOI or URL of the report: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xky4j

Version of the report: 9

Author's Reply, 13 Feb 2023

Decision by ORCID_LOGO, posted 26 Jan 2023, validated 26 Jan 2023

Thank you for submitting a Stage 2 manuscript with very intriguing results and discussion. I think this paper needs only minor revisions.

As you can see, we received peer review comments from two experts.

One gave detailed advice on how to graphically present and describe the results, and how to treat claims in the discussion. These would benefit the manuscript from serious consideration.

The second reviewer was also quite satisfied with the manuscript, but commented on the multiple comparisons. This comment calls for a change in Section 2.4.3, which is locked in Stage 1 and cannot be directly revised. Therefore, this point can be mentioned in the discussion if necessary or added to the results section as an unregistered analysis. Alternatively, you may want to simply disagree with the reviewer. Whichever approach you choose, please let us know why in your reply.

Please see the individual peer review comments for details. We look forward to your corrections and re-submission.

Yuki Yamada, Recommender

Reviewed by ORCID_LOGO, 17 Jan 2023

Reviewed by anonymous reviewer 1, 16 Jan 2023

​​​​

Download the review