15 Years History of The Continuous Response Digital Interface

Council for Research in Music Education
A Fifteen-Year History of the Continuous Response Digital Interface: Issues Relating to

Validity and Reliability
Author(s): John M. Geringer, Clifford K. Madsen and Dianne Gregory
Source: Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, No. 160 (Spring, 2004), pp.
1-15
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Council for Research in Music
Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319214
Accessed: 18-08-2017 05:33 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Illinois Press, Council for Research in Music Education are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Council for Research
in Music Education
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.156 on Fri, 18 Aug 2017 05:33:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Spring, 2004, No. 160
A Fifteen-year History of the

Continuous Response Digital Interface:
Issues Relating to Validity and Reliability
John M. Geringer, Clifford K. Madsen, and Dianne Gregory

Center for Music Research
The Florida State University
Abstract
This paper contains an overview, analysis, and comments regarding fifteen years of re-
search using the Continuous Response Digital Interface (CRDI). A brief history of the CRDI
development is given followed by a general explanation of issues relating to validity and reliabil-
ity, especially concerning CRDI studies in music. Specific studies are addressed relating to
assessments using this device in relationship to other continuous response devices and other
traditional measurement scales.
Introduction
In the late 1980s a new measuring device was developed at the Center for Music
Research (CMR) at Florida State University. We called it the Continuous Response
Digital Interface (CRDI). l
This device allows listeners to respond non- verbally during ongoing music and/or
during visual presentations. We were interested in using extant technology to develop
a device that would be multi-purpose, yet provide a "standard" for subsequent non-
verbal measurement (Madsen, 1990)2. Obviously, it is difficult to compare results of
separate studies if there is not a similar measuring device - and further development of
any "new" measuring device compounds this problem. Similar devices had been pre-
viously used in measuring continuous responses to music (whether heard or imagined)
yet there was not wide access to the software, some were cumbersome, or the devices
were very expensive (Clynes, 1977; Clynes & Nettheim, 1982; de Vries, 1991; Hatoh,
Kato, Kuwano, & Namba, 1989; Kuwano, & Namba, 1985; Nielsen, 1987).
The initial CRDI took two basic forms. One consisted of a large dial that could be
moved across a 256-degree arc using various overlays that were specific to the vari-
ables being studied. The other consisted of a box with a lever (slider) that could be
1 Development of the CRDI was a collaborative effort. Based on earlier theoretical work of
Vance Cotter, Jere Forsythe, Doug Greer, and Terry Kuhn, the hardware itself was developed by
Eitaro Kawaguchi (an electrical engineer at CMR) and Charles Robinson. The software was a
group effort: Dianne Gregory, Eitaro Kawaguchi, Clifford Madsen, Charles Robinson, Jack Tay-
lor, Earlene Rentz, Deborah Capperella Sheldon, Ruth Brittin, and Chris Johnson all contributed
to the early devices.
2 Over the years the Center for Music Research has provided software to anyone interested
in using any of the CRDI devices. The one-dimensional device includes a recently developed
interface (with USB connection to a single PC or Mac) that accepts up to eight separate dials for
simultaneous testing. The current two-dimensional version is software only.
2
moved up/down or across, which

first two studies made use of the
first dial and used it in evaluatio
Rentz also in 1988 (subsequently
(with an overlay specifying instr
musicians and non-musicians to v
first six minutes of Copland's Bill
taken across time and the output
viations. See Gregory (1989) for a
Additionally, a two-dimensional
measure two variables simultane
Tyler, 1996), and a similar one d
arousal responses concurrently ba
1989) circumplex model of affect
Investigations using the CRDI ov
development include over 70 pub
international journals, and approx
ing device, issues of validity and r
this "new" measuring instrume
Schubert, 1996; 1999; 2001). Thes
this manner is it possible for any
findings derived from systematic
sues by bringing together past rese
traditional measuring instruments
ential scales. It is interesting to n
are used ubiquitously throughout r
more "common" measurement instr
not receive as much attention a
grading systems within our public
we have dispensed with maintain
extended use in newer areas wher
pears especially noteworthy durin
decisions are being made based o
Validity
Important issues concerning validity relate to many different aspects of measur-
ing what it is that any instrument is intended to measure. Yet a primary question must
be asked: Valid for what and/or for whom? As noted by Schmidt (1996), the same
instrument used to assess fine-level gradients of music perception may not be "valid"
when used to assess other music responses. A Likert-type rating scale or a CRDI dial
intended to measure music preferences of fourth grade students may not be "valid" when
assessing preferences of college-age music majors. Tests are designed for a variety of
purposes and measurement devices are as well. Most often entire tests are constructed
specifically to measure a defined population on a very specific attribute. For example,
the Seashore Measures of Musical Talents would not be used appropriately to assess
music performance achievement, an analysis of fundamental frequency would not be
considered a sufficient measure of expression in music. While "control" measurements
are often useful (e.g., spectrographic analysis of waveforms to establish actual stimu-
lus differentiation), most measuring devices are intended for some specific purpose.
Validity should only be evaluated based on specific purposes, and there are a number
of ways that validity can be classified. Often the classification relates to content valid-
ity and is primarily based on someone's judgment as to whether the content is
representative. Indeed, all attempts at establishing validity are actually based either
Gernger/Madsen/Gregory
on conjecture and/or so
lated or empirical) and c
measurements taken to r
criterion (and one may
forms of validity relate
measures, not from the
construct validity are b
simplification is not inte
of validity, something t
remembered however th
or who it is that is doing
Content validity is the
requires both face valid
test appears to measure
ported to measure. Sam
sampling of the total con
cations in that "global"
research literature and n
Construct validity is a
sults as predicted by a c
must be inferred by m
devises (e.g., a PET or f
while a person listens to
thinking, musical or oth
ficult task and the infer
assessments or explanat
music preferences, mus
A construct can be conc
usually many studies a
entity. The process usua
ing the construct. If we
will learn music faster, w
choose to continue the f
differentiate talent and relate it to the other measurements.
A number of philosophers of science (e.g. Popper, 1962) and music educators
(e.g. Cady, 1992) have noted the necessity of theory in the development of research.
Some criticism directed toward "behavioral research" has focused on its lack of theory
(Skinner argued, for example in 1950, that theory is unnecessary and only empirical
description of responses is useful). Such criticism, however, is relevant and may pro-
vide a point of departure in that many music researchers (including those who consider
themselves behaviorists) have advanced only a limited number of theories, albeit after
amassing a large amount of data and with a view toward parsimony, especially
concerning those aspects incapable of being fully operationalized (Geringer & Madsen,
1991; Madsen, 1996; 1999; Madsen & Geringer, 2001). Juslin (2001) also noted the
lack of relevant theories and presents an elaborated theoretical framework that
addresses music performance and suggests a functionalist perspective on emotional
communication. Regardless of intent, the deficiency in attempts to explore the
basic theoretical underpinnings of research constructs is not advocated and does not
diminish the need for well developed theory - an absolute necessity for continuing
research development.
Concurrent validity is actually a reliability procedure that attempts to relate the
degree of relationship between one set of scores (measurements) and another previ-
ously recognized set measured earlier or at about the same time. Usually, an already
established measurement is used to compare one set of measurements in a kind of
4
"goodness of fit" relationship to

of concurrent validity (e.g., Brit
1995; Geringer & Madsen, 1995/
Goins (1998), for example, compar
with responses on a modified He
between the two. Madsen and Ger
string performances regarding in
assessments with Likert-type rati
necessary.
Predictive validity represents yet another reliability measurement intended to
measure the degree that one test can predict how well a person will do in a future
situation or test or meet some "standard." Many tests are used for this purpose, the
most widely recognized forms might be the College Board Exams which are intended
to predict (by using a score on one set of tasks, e.g., the SAT or ACT) how well a first-
time in college student will actually do on another set of tasks, that is, grade achievement
in college courses. In the field of music, Seashore's and Gordon's tests have had simi-
lar use (Seashore, 1938; Gordon, 1965; 1979).
However, since music responses are often idiosyncratic to a particular setting,
person, population or music selection, CRDI measurements of one's inner responsive-
ness to music might well not be entirely adequate, especially in investigating such
things as aesthetic experience particularly if such experience is multi-dimensional.
Schmidt (1996) appropriately suggests that the CRDI might not be adequate in assess-
ing such a complex response, especially without some type of triangulation with other
continuous and static measures. Examples might include adjective check lists, seman-
tic differentials, rating scales, Russell's Affect Grid (see Russell et al, 1989), and the
multidimensional instrument developed by Asmus (1985) for measurement of affec-
tive responses to music, the 9-Affective Dimensions. Ill-defined constructs such as
aesthetic experience are extremely difficult to measure indeed. Even though defini-
tions have been given at least as long ago as the early Greek philosophers, this
"experience" has been variously defined as either so ineffable as to being incapable of
being measured or so global that it seemingly encompasses everything having to do
with the arts.
Because of this inherent difficulty, in many of the first studies using the CRDI to
measure aesthetic experience no definition was purposely given. It should be consid-
ered, however, that the sophisticated musicians in the first study all stated that they
knew exactly what the aesthetic esperience was (Madsen, Brittin, & Capperella-Sheldon,
1993). Additionally, in this initial investigation (and almost all of the other CRDI aes-
thetic response studies) there was an exit questionnaire that asked subjects, "Did you
have what you consider to be an aesthetic experience(s) while listening to the music?",
and "Did your movement of the dial correspond to what you define as an aesthetic
experience?" AU subjects (faculty and graduate students) in that study indicated yes to
both questions. Ninety percent or more have indicated yes in subsequent investigations
(See Table 1). Still, much more research is advisable especially relating to precise
terminology (Madsen, 1999).
In Lychner's (1998) work that used the CRDI to investigate terminology, the terms
aesthetic response, felt emotional response, perceived tension, and a control free re-
sponse condition were used for four different music excerpts. Only the perceived tension
label received substantially different responses when compared to the others (Fredrickson
in 1995 also found notable differences between tension and aesthetic responses). It is
interesting that in the free response condition listeners moved the CRDI dial across an
overlay that was labeled with only the words LESS on one side and MORE on the other:
less what and more what were purposefully not specified. Surprisingly, while this was
initially considered as a control condition, subjects responded similarly across all three
terms: aesthetic response, felt emotional response, and the Less/More continuum.
Geringer/Madsen/Gregory
Indeed, these results m

of other "global" attrib
formance. In an article
intensity, Madsen (1988
teacher", there is very li
Regardless, diligent atte
Yet we may find that s
agree using an overall r
aspects of performanc
Reliability
Reliability is concerned with consistency of measurements across time, or consis-
tency across various instruments, observers, and so on. Reliability is expressed as a
degree of relationship and is determined in various ways: test-retest, split-halves, par-
allel forms, sample observations compared with other subjects, judges, observers, or
devices. All are attempts to demonstrate relationships and minimize the unintended
spurious effects of measurement error that is an inevitable result of any and all mea-
surement. Stanley (1971) defined reliability as the proportion of variance in a set of
values that is due to genuine variability in what is being measured.
Establishing reliability whether used to help establish validity or having to do
with other issues concerning consistency of measurement is much more straightfor-
ward than establishing validity. If any measuring device appears consistent and looks
as if it actually measures what it is purported to measure, then another extremely im-
portant question must be raised, "How does one actually know if a measurement is
valid without resorting to either conjecture and/or reliability?" Or as Ed Gordon has
aptly stated, "Only God can establish validity."3
One of the first reliability studies was conducted by Capperella (1989), who as-
sessed test-retest reliability. Capperella used the lever version of the CRDI by dividing
the horizontal line into five music elements, such as dynamic and melodic. Forty par-
ticipants listened to ten classical music excerpts and moved the lever to the section of
the dial corresponding to their focus of attention. Test-retest reliability with musicians
and non-musicians in each of the five element zones ranged from .73 to .98, with a
mean of .90. Another of the first studies by Gregory subsequently published in 1994
was extremely large in scope. The study attempted to answer a basic question: Does a
person more often choose music that has been previously studied when compared to
other possibilities? Preference responses across a wide range of music examples were
obtained from nearly 1300 participants in eight sites across the United States. Thirty
percent of each age group used two CRDI dials during listening: preference ratings
(obtained from all listeners) were collected on one dial, and discrete responses to knowl-
edge questions were collected on a second dial. Preference ratings of sixth grade, high
school, and college students using only the preference dial were similar to the ratings
of subjects in each group using both the knowledge and preference dials. However, the
degree to which listeners' reported knowledge of a specific music excerpt corresponded
with the degree of reported preference for that selection was inconsistent across ex-
cerpts and age groups.
3 Presentation by Edwin Gordon, National Symposium on Research in Musical Behavior,

Columbia University, New York, NY, February, 1970.
6
During that same time period in

rily to test the CRDI as a measurin
music listing preferences within
"special needs" pre-school youngst
Since the CRDI is intended as a no
was examined in detail to determi
sequencing corresponding to the t
there was a differentiation within
graph provided a clear indication
sters many of whom were entir
non-attentiveness when the dial w
established the important and un
sponses of pre- and non-verbal in
Analyses of standard deviations
cluded in the early CRDI studies.
standard deviations for every gro
tion in that study (standard dev
lines) and in subsequent others (e.
1993; Fredrickson & Johnson, 199
cerpts, it was decided that includ
little information and often did n
issues related to reliability and th
Another issue concerns the appr
continuous data. CRDI studies ha
Coggiola, 2003; Madsen, Capparel
inferential statistics (e.g., Coggi
statistics only (e.g., Brittin & Du
the Pearson product-moment corre
ment index with categorical dat
Spearman rank correlation proced
suggestion is arguable, given that
can be made extremely stringent
suggested that perhaps the averag
search might be useful. Schub
recommendations regarding dat
Schubert's suggestions include ado
the serial correlation of continuou
and cross-correlation techniques)
responses of listeners in terms of
in several previous CRDI studies (
& Johnson, 1996; Geringer, 1995
Discussion
In past years the graduate training of music educators did not always include the
tests, measurements, and statistics courses evident in much of today's curricula.
Many years ago it was common to "bring in outside expertise" to help not only indi-
vidual graduate students complete their research, but to help the entire field of
music education in using techniques and procedures that were not available within
graduate music programs. Presently, there are many persons in music education with
the expertise to provide necessary guidance for almost all research projects and the
growing body of research published in our best music journals attests to this higher
level of sophistication.
The groups of graduate s

sic therapy program or
undergraduate degree in m
enced this greater sophi
required research course
there are a number of sc
1965; Standley & Pricke
Regardless of this great
main highly critical and
guidance for others. Wh
form for evaluating a ba
tival, an observation for
intervention, or to invest
music cognition, we mus
embrace unquestionably
tional tests (regardless of
thinking via oral or writ
including the CRDL We
relating to validity and re
In one sense it seems th
ing an inexpensive non
investigate issues in mus
"dial" which could be ea
various investigations (R
easily be adapted for ot
Whereas the original pu
that each separate study
relating to both validity
should include both qua
perception, music perfor
responses seem too imp
single-study limitations. C
always be welcomed and
References
Adams, B. L. (1994). The effect of visual/aural conditions on the emotional response

to music. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Asmus, E. P. (1985). The development of a multidimensional instrument for the mea-
surement of affective responses to music. Psychology of Music, 13. 19-30.
Bergee M. J. (1995). Primary and higher-order factors in a scale assessing concert band
performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 126, 1-14.
Brittin, R. V. (1991). The effect of overt categorization on preference of popular music
styles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40, 143-151.
Brittin, R. V. & Duke, R. A. (1997). Continuous and summative evaluation of intensity
in music: A comparison of two methods for measuring overall effect. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 45, 245-258.
Brittin, R. V. & Sheldon, D. A. (1995). Comparing continuous versus static
measurements in music listeners' preference. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 43, 36-46.
Capperella, D. A. (1989). Reliability of the Continuous Response Digital Interface for
data collection in a study of auditory perception. Southeastern Journal of Music
Education, 7, 19-32.
8
Capperella-Sheldon, D. A. (1992).
sicians and nonmusicians in r
Research 28 (1), 57-71.
Cady, H. L. (1992). Sources of theory for research in school music. In R. Colwell
(Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 60-72). New
York: Schirmer Books.
Clynes, M. (1977) Sentics: The touch of emotions. Oxford, England: Anchor Press.
Clynes, ML, & Nettheim, N. (1982). The living quality of music. In M. Clynes (Ed.),
Music, mind, and brain: The neuropsy cholo gy of music. New York: Plenum Press.
Coggiola, J. C. (1997). The effect of conceptual advancement in jazz music selections
and jazz experience on musicians' affective response. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Colwell, R (2002). Assessment's potential in music education. In R. Colwell & C.
Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research in music education on music
teaching and learning (pp. 1 128- 1 158). New York: Oxford University Press.
de Vries, B. (1991). Assessment of the affective response to music with Clynes 's
sentograph. Psychology of Music. 19. 46-64.
Fiske, H. (1977). Relationship of selected factors in trumpet performance adjudica-
tion. Journal of Research in Music Education, 25, 256-263.
Fredrickson, W. E. (1995). A comparison of perceived musical tension and aesthetic
response. Psychology of Music, 23, 81-87.
Fredrickson, W. E. & Coggiola, J. C. (2003). A comparison of music majors' and
nonmajors' perceptions of tension for two selections of jazz music. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 51, 259-270.
Fredrickson, W. E., & Johnson, C. M. (1996). The effect of performer use of vibrato on
listener perception of tension in Mozart. Psychomusicology, 15, 78-86.
Geringer, J. M. (1995). Continuous loudness judgments of dynamics in recorded mu-
sic excerpts. Journal of Research in Music Education, 43, 22-35.
Geringer, J. M. & Madsen, C. K. (1991). Toward a hierarchy of music elements: Two
descriptive studies. Canadian Music Educator (Special Research Edition), 33, 27-35.
Geringer, J. M. & Madsen, C. K. (1995/1996). Focus of attention to elements: Listen-
ing patterns of musicians and nonmusicians. Bulletin of the Council for Research
in Music Education, 127, 80-87.
Geringer, J. M. & Madsen, C. K. (2003). Gradual tempo change and aesthetic response
of music majors. International Journal of Music Education, 40, 3-15.
Goins, W. E. (1998). The effect of moodstates: Continuous versus summative responses.
Journal of Music Therapy, 35, 259-273.
Gordon, E. E. (1965). Musical aptitude profile. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gordon, E. E. (1979). Developmental music aptitude as measured by the primary mea-
sures of music audition. Psychology of Music, 7, 42-49.
Gregory, D. (1989). Using computers to measure continuous music responses.
Psychomusicology, 8, 127-134.
Gregory, D. (1994). Analysis of listening preferences of high school and college musi-
cians. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42, 331-342.
Gregory, D. (1995). The Continuous Response Digital Interface: An analysis of reli-
ability measures. Psychomusicology, 14, 197-208.
Hatoh, T, Kato, M., Kuwano, S., & Namba, S. (1989). Assessment of musical perfor-
mance using the method of continuous judgment of selected description.
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Music Perception and Cog-
nition (pp. 33-36), Kyoto, Japan.
Johnson, C. (1992). Use of the Continuous Response Digital Interface in the
evaluation of live musical performance. Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 20,261-271.
Juslin, P. N. (2001). Com

theoretical framework.
tion: Theory and resea
Kuwano, S., & Namba, S
and the relationship be
chological Research, 47
Lychner, J. A. (1998). An
response to music. Jour
Madsen, C. K. (1965). Anew
Madsen, C. K. (1988). Inte
(Ed.), Research in music
Reading, England: ISM
Madsen, C. K. (1990). Me
26-28.
Madsen, C. K. (1996). Empirical investigation of the aesthetic response to music:

Musicians and nonmusicians. In B. Pennycook & E. Costa-Giorni (Eds.), Pro-
ceedings of the 4th International Conference of Music Perception and Cognition
(pp. 103-110). Montreal: McGill University.
Madsen, C. K. (1999). Research in music behavior. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 33
(4), 77-92.
Madsen, C. K., Brittin, R. V. & Capperella-Sheldon, D. A. (1993). An empirical inves-
tigation of the aesthetic response to music. Journal of Research in Music Education,
4L 57-69.
Madsen, C. K., Byrnes, S. R., Capperella-Sheldon, D. A. & Brittin, R. V. (1993). Aes-
thetic response to music: Musicians vs. nonmusicians. Journal of Music Therapy,
30, 174-191.
Madsen, C. K., Capperella-Sheldon, D. A., & Johnson, C. M. (1991). Use of the con-
tinuous response digital interface (CRDI) in evaluating music responses of special
populations. Journal of the International Association of Music for the Handicapped,
6 (2), 3-15.
Madsen, C. K. & Fredrickson, W. E. (1993). The experience of musical tension: A
replication of Nielsen's research using the continuous response digital interface.
Journal of Music Theraov. 30. 46-57.
Madsen, C. K. & Geringer, J. M. (1999). Comparison of good versus bad tone quality/
intonation of vocal and string performances: Issues concerning measurement and
reliability of the Continuous Response Digital Interface. Bulletin of the Council
for Research in Music Education, 141, 86-92.
Madsen, C. K. & Geringer, J. M. (2001). A focus of attention model for meaningful
listening. Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music Education, 147, 103-108.
Madsen, C. K. & Madsen, C. H. (1998). Teaching/discipline: A positive approach for
educational development. Raleigh, NC: Contemporary Publishing.
Nielsen, F. V. (1987). Musical tension and related concepts. In T. A. Sebeok and J.
Umiker-Sebeok (Eds.), The Semiotic web '86. An international yearbook (pp. 491-
531). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Popper, K. R. (1962). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge.
New York: Basic Books.
Rentz, E. (1992). Musicians' and nonmusicians' aural perception of orchestral instru-
ment families. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40, 185-192.
Robinson, C. R. (1988). Differentiated modes of choral performance evaluation using
traditional procedures and a Continuous Response Digital Interface device. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 1161-1178.
K)
Russell, J. A., Weiss, A., & Me

scale of pleasure and arousal.
57, 493-502.
Schmidt, C. A. (1996). Reliability
review with implications for fu
view, 4(1), 20-32.
Schubert, E. (1996). Continuous
space. In B. Pennycook & E. Cos
tional Conference of Music Pe
McGill University.
Schubert, E. (1999) Measuring emotion continuously: Validity and reliability of the
two-dimensional emotion space. Australian Journal of Psychology, 51, 154-165.
Schubert, E. (2001). Continuous measurement of self-reported emotional response to
music. In P. N. Juslin and J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Music and emotion: Theory and
research (pp. 393-414). New York: Oxford University Press.
Seashore, C. E. (1938). Psychology of music. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review,
57, 193-216.
Standley, J. M. & Prickett, C. A. (Eds.). Research in music therapy: A tradition of
excellence. Outstanding reprints from the journal of music therapy. Silver Spring,
MD: National Association for Music Therapy, Inc., 1994.
Stanley, J. C. (1971). Reliability. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement
(pp. 356-442). Washington, D. C. : American Council on Education.
Tyler, P. W. (1996). Developing a two-dimensional continuous response space for emo-
tions perceived in music. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State
University, Tallahassee.
"-" o o o
2 S dCi
& o co r^
Q O\ Q\ 00
s
u
!
w
O W) w
**
fi
I i i ! I i i i i I I
"3
4-4
'3d
a II S ! . p ! ! 1- & ! 8 8
5 S 11 l-S-ilS-lgalii
^I
va
6 S lili
H
.S, 3'|!giii*i?!iiii
O
.a .y .a e SS? .a -S -^ .y g* .a .h ^ .a !a !a !a
U
o>
JB
+
fl\ 0O On On On On On On On On On On On O^ Q\ On
0) h^ On On Os On On On On On On On On On On On On
[
-^
I*
^3
^ I
0>
0> ! i 1 all
-o
i2d 11U! O
"i2"i2
a? >>
a" cq
>> CD
! &
2
3
I 11 1 I 1 1 1 I I ! I I I 1 1!
VI
1 y
"u E Si
05 E si
il I !
I II lilil
B I 1 . I I I 1 I 1 | I I 1 1 1 I
e i i e 2 |
f 1 rf . *.fi I 111 2
li* i. i I i I
.& I I * -e s I -g " a - s e 2 ^ g ^ ^ |
.a .a .a .a g ' % .a g " .a | - g ^ .a .a g> .
I 1 I 1 ' I I 11 g I! I 1 1 3 .a 1 .
h i i i i i Mgagg|g|
o
Qj ON CTN O^ O\ On On On O^ GK Os On On On On On On On
>v. On On On On On On On On On On On On ON On On On On
8 3 a
o ^ o _ o u
I ! i . . I . i _ j o 1
i I i i ! ! I I i l ! ! i 1 ! I .
w O n ^vrT oo os o ^
? Ih ?
I I a 1 * 1 I I I I
f 1 1 I I I t 1 I | !
2 i - .1 | & f ? I siili l
118 - 1111 I i ill! I
1 * %
1 li t fs il
g I a | 3S <S| 1
a 1 g l I g 5 = i s- 1 -i -J g S-I e
I 5 1 i f a I i FI g I" n a a a f fi 1
f J> g* > I I 1 & || S %t i 1 I I & !
! *3Sl!23ss!s3!!i!si!i
e w^_ i ii a ? a shsI^ ^
fl\ ^ ^J\ ^^ ^^ ^^ yA ^"\ (^\ lj^ ^^> ij*^ 1^^ ^^ 1^^, ^^ ^^N 1^^
h^ On On On On On ON O^ On On On O\ On On On On On On
I i
1 I
1 fi
a 3 ! = 1
e5
1 I I I | I III I I I 1 I 1
14
w ^ ^ rs oo ~
& w w w ^ w
cG in in co n on
Q 00 ON ON ON 00
^ S 5 5 5 I u
c I II g fl . I I
1 hs 8 I !5. I I 1 I I ! 1 I I I
a III I II I i i ! I lili lili
U O S S o <^ t^^fS^^^^^^tg^^
a va
'I1 -I ; -a? "s -|

M .a .s e -g .a S .a
I I III a t I I I I I I I I I I
5 3 '3 3 1 3 "I "I 1 1 1 ' "I i "I g> 1 1
I 1 & . ! I i
? ! I 1
I i 1 i I I 1 ii i 1
Gernger/Madsen/Gregory
S o >,
e o
1 I I
e -o
'5 > .a %
I I 1 > I 1 I I
e lappili
i1 a I
I 1 il f
o 3 'O ^
.a <$ g "g .2, -g E g .
Illlllll | |
~ .-
s, B |
i li | = i4 ! = |
3 1 = 1 1 i = * i
> 888c8<Nca ^fj! * 3 I g
diluii laf
I iitiWi! li i
li il liil i
i ili iiilieilssliii
i ! I I I I ! i i

15 Years History of The Continuous Response Digital Interface

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

15 Years History of The Continuous Response Digital Interface

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Council for Research in Music Education

A Fifteen-Year History of the Continuous Response Digital Interface: Issues Relating to

A Fifteen-year History of the

John M. Geringer, Clifford K. Madsen, and Dianne Gregory

moved up/down or across, which

"goodness of fit" relationship to

Indeed, these results m

3 Presentation by Edwin Gordon, National Symposium on Research in Musical Behavior,

During that same time period in

The groups of graduate s

Adams, B. L. (1994). The effect of visual/aural conditions on the emotional response

Juslin, P. N. (2001). Com

Madsen, C. K. (1996). Empirical investigation of the aesthetic response to music:

Russell, J. A., Weiss, A., & Me

'I1 -I ; -a? "s -|

.a <$ g "g .2, -g E g .

You might also like