skip to main content
10.1145/3447527.3474865acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobilehciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Encouraging Improvisation in Piano LearningUsing Adaptive Visualisations and Spatiotemporal Models

Authors Info & Claims
Published:27 September 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

The process of learning the piano for novices is usually difficult and time-consuming. Several approaches in augmented reality such as piano-roll visualizations have been explored but have not garnered enough success and adoption. These piano roll prototypes have introduced several features and modules that assist novices on aspects such in sight reading, timing and many others. However, improvisation, the act of allowing the piano user to incorporate their personal touch into their performance, and personalised learning have not been much explored in this domain. In this PhD, we are going to explore how we can encourage piano learners to improvise with the use of adaptive piano roll visualisations. Specifically, we are going to investigate how heuristics defined by experts and spatiotemporal models can be used to design visualisations that motivate and encourage learners based on their personalised learning patterns. Using these models and inputs, we will design and build a piano roll training system integrated with adaptive visualisations that serve as intervention helping learners. We will evaluate and compare these visualisations in various user studies where they get to play piano pieces and develop their improvisation skills. We intend to uncover whether these adaptive visualisations will be helpful in the overall training of piano learners. Additionally, we wish to explore whether these adaptive visualisations will allow us to discover affordances that can potentially improve piano learning in general.

References

  1. István Barakonyi and Dieter Schmalstieg. 2005. Augmented reality agents in the development pipeline of computer entertainment. In International Conference on Entertainment Computing. Springer, 345–356.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Jonathan Chow, Haoyang Feng, Robert Amor, and Burkhard C Wünsche. 2013. Music education using augmented reality with a head mounted display. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian User Interface Conference-Volume 139. 73–79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Yawen Eunice Chyu. 2004. Teaching improvisation to piano students of elementary to intermediate levels. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Ohio State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Peter Cope and Hugh Smith. 1997. Cultural context in musical instrument learning. British Journal of Music Education 14, 3 (1997), 283–289.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Andrea Creech. 2010. Learning a musical instrument: The case for parental support. Music Education Research 12, 1 (2010), 13–32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Ryan Daniel. 2006. Exploring music instrument teaching and learning environments: Video analysis as a means of elucidating process and learning outcomes. Music Education Research 8, 2 (2006), 191–215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Jordan Aiko Deja. 2021. Adaptive Visualisations Using Spatiotemporal and Heuristic Models to Support Piano Learning. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (Utrecht, Netherlands) (UMAP ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 286–290. https://doi.org/10.1145/3450613.3459656Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Dominique Fober, Stéphane Letz, and Yann Orlarey. 2007. Vemus-feedback and groupware technologies for music instrument learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Alix Goguey, Carl Gutwin, Zhe Chen, Pang Suwanaposee, and Andy Cockburn. 2021. Interaction Pace and User Preferences. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445772Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Marc Hassenzahl, Michael Burmester, and Franz Koller. 2003. AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. In Mensch & computer 2003. Springer, 187–196.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Feng Huang, Yu Zhou, Yao Yu, Ziqiang Wang, and Sidan Du. 2011. Piano ar: A markerless augmented reality based piano teaching system. In 2011 Third International Conference on Intelligent Human-Machine Systems and Cybernetics, Vol. 2. IEEE, 47–52.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Jakob Karolus, Annika Kilian, Thomas Kosch, Albrecht Schmidt, and Paweł W Wozniak. 2020. Hit the Thumb Jack! Using Electromyography to Augment the Piano Keyboard. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 429–440.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Mohammed K Khalil, Fred Paas, Tristan E Johnson, and Andrew F Payer. 2005. Design of interactive and dynamic anatomical visualizations: the implication of cognitive load theory. The Anatomical Record Part B: The New Anatomist: An Official Publication of the American Association of Anatomists 286, 1(2005), 15–20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Sunjun Kim, Byungjoo Lee, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2018. Impact activation improves rapid button pressing. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Melina Klepsch, Florian Schmitz, and Tina Seufert. 2017. Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Frontiers in psychology 8 (2017), 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Sébastien Lallé and Cristina Conati. 2019. The role of user differences in customization: a case study in personalization for infovis-based content. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 329–339.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kevin C. Lam, Carl Gutwin, Madison Klarkowski, and Andy Cockburn. 2021. The Effects of System Interpretation Errors on Learning New Input Mechanisms. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445366Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Edward W Large and Caroline Palmer. 2002. Perceiving temporal regularity in music. Cognitive science 26, 1 (2002), 1–37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Byungjoo Lee. 2016. Temporal Pointing. http://www.leebyungjoo.com/Temporal-Pointing-1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Byungjoo Lee, Qiao Deng, Eve Hoggan, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2017. Boxer: a multimodal collision technique for virtual objects. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. 252–260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Byungjoo Lee and Antti Oulasvirta. 2016. Modelling error rates in temporal pointing. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1857–1868.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Yi-Chi Liao, Sunjun Kim, Byungjoo Lee, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2020. Button Simulation and Design via FDVV Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04352(2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Edward A Lippman. 1984. Progressive temporality in music. Journal of Musicology 3, 2 (1984), 121–141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Eunji Park and Byungjoo Lee. 2020. An Intermittent Click Planning Model. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jeff Pressing. 1998. Error correction processes in temporal pattern production. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 42, 1 (1998), 63–101.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Remy MJP Rikers, Pascal WM Van Gerven, and Henk G Schmidt. 2004. Cognitive load theory as a tool for expertise development. Instructional Science 32, 1-2 (2004), 173–182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Katja Rogers, Amrei Röhlig, Matthias Weing, Jan Gugenheimer, Bastian Könings, Melina Klepsch, Florian Schaub, Enrico Rukzio, Tina Seufert, and Michael Weber. 2014. Piano: Faster piano learning with interactive projection. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces. 149–158.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Marc Ericson C Santos, Angie Chen, Takafumi Taketomi, Goshiro Yamamoto, Jun Miyazaki, and Hirokazu Kato. 2013. Augmented reality learning experiences: Survey of prototype design and evaluation. IEEE Transactions on learning technologies 7, 1 (2013), 38–56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Dirk Vorberg and Hans-Henning Schulze. 2002. Linear phase-correction in synchronization: Predictions, parameter estimation, and simulations. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 46, 1 (2002), 56–87.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Matthias Weing, Amrei Röhlig, Katja Rogers, Jan Gugenheimer, Florian Schaub, Bastian Könings, Enrico Rukzio, and Michael Weber. 2013. PIANO: enhancing instrument learning via interactive projected augmentation. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing adjunct publication. 75–78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Alan M Wing and AB Kristofferson. 1973. The timing of interresponse intervals. Perception & Psychophysics 13, 3 (1973), 455–460.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Alan M Wing and Alfred B Kristofferson. 1973. Response delays and the timing of discrete motor responses. Perception & Psychophysics 14, 1 (1973), 5–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Beste F Yuksel, Kurt B Oleson, Lane Harrison, Evan M Peck, Daniel Afergan, Remco Chang, and Robert JK Jacob. 2016. Learn piano with BACh: An adaptive learning interface that adjusts task difficulty based on brain state. In Proceedings of the 2016 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 5372–5384.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    MobileHCI '21: Adjunct Publication of the 23rd International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction
    September 2021
    150 pages
    ISBN:9781450383295
    DOI:10.1145/3447527

    Copyright © 2021 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 27 September 2021

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • extended-abstract
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate202of906submissions,22%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format