Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Music, Technology & Education
  4. Volume 16, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 16, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1752-7066
  • E-ISSN: 1752-7074

Abstract

The present text describes the indicators of a Readability Index for Music: the RIM. These indicators are the result of a model, built based on cognitive and mathematical concepts that assess the complexity of written music. Understanding readability as the ease with which we read a text, the RIM is designed to improve the perception of this feature in written music. Its construction is based on recent literature from music cognition, and it evaluates the syntactic complexity of a musical fragment using tools from information theory, such as Shannon’s entropy. The model provides five indicators of complexity in written music. After computer testing and a case study of a fragment of Beethoven’s , ‘Piano Concerto No. 3’, we conclude that these indicators reflect difficulty features in western music; according to the music cognition literature. Also, these show minimal interdependence, as reported in statistical analysis in arts. The RIM is useful for music educators that can now compare complexity in written music, and assess its difficulty more homogeneously.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • CONACYT (Award 771618)
© 2023 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jmte_00066_1
2025-07-30
2026-02-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Angeler, D. G. (2020), ‘Biodiversity in music scores’, Challenges, 11:1, p. 7, https://doi.org/10.3390/challe11010007.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnheim, R. (2020), Visual Thinking, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Aurnhammer, C. and Frank, S. L. (2019), ‘Evaluating information-theoretic measures of word prediction in naturalistic sentence reading’, Neuropsychologia, 134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.107198.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Baddeley, A. (2003), ‘Working memory and language: An overview’, Journal of Communication Disorders, 36:3, pp. 189–208, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-9924(03)00019-4.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bailin, A. and Grafstein, A. (2016), Readability: Text and Context, London: Springer, http://site.ebrary.com/id/11118190. Accessed 1 June 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Benjamin, R. G. (2012), ‘Reconstructing readability: Recent developments and recommendations in the analysis of text difficulty’, Educational Psychology Review, 24:1, pp. 63–88, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9181-8.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Buchanan, J. P. (2016), Information Structures in Notated Music: Statistical Explorations of Composers’ Performance Marks in Solo Piano Scores, Denton, TX: University of North Texas, https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc849733/m1/120/. Accessed 1 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Burman, D. D. and Booth, J. R. (2009), ‘Music rehearsal increases the perceptual span for notation’, Music Perception, 26:4, pp. 303–20, https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2009.26.4.303.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Candadai, M. (2021), ‘Information theoretic analysis of computational models as a tool to understand the neural basis of behaviors’, arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2106.05186.
  10. Chase, I. D. (2006), ‘Music notation: A new method for visualizing social interaction in animals and humans’, Frontiers in Zoology, 3:1, https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-9994-3-18.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chitalkina, N., Puurtinen, M., Gruber, H. and Bednarik, R. (2020), ‘Handling of incongruences in music notation during singing or playing’, International Journal of Music Education, 39:1, pp. 18–38, https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761420944036.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Dover Publications (1983), Ludwig van Beethoven’s Werke, Serie 9, Nr.67, Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, Plate B.67, https://imslp.org/wiki/Piano_Concerto_No.3%2C_Op.37_(Beethoven%2C_Ludwig_van). Accessed 1 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Eden Ünlü, S. and Ece, A. S. (2019), ‘Reading notation with Gestalt perception principles: Gestalt algı ilkeleri ile notasyon okuma’, Journal of Human Sciences, 16:4, pp. 1104–20, https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v16i4.5822.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Endestad, T., Godøy, R. I., Sneve, M. H., Hagen, T., Bochynska, A. and Laeng, B. (2020), ‘Mental effort when playing, listening, and imagining music in one pianist’s eyes and brain’, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14, pp. 1–23, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.576888.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Fan, J. (2014), ‘An information theory account of cognitive control’, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00680.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fan, P., Wong, A. C.-N. and Wong, Y. K. (2022), ‘Visual and visual association abilities predict skilled reading performance: The case of music sight-reading’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151:11, pp. 2683–705, https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001217.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Friston, K. J., Rosch, R., Parr, T., Price, C. and Bowman, H. (2017), ‘Deep temporal models and active inference’, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 77, pp. 388–402, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.04.009.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Galera Núñez, M. del M. (2010), ‘Efectos de diferentes variables en la lectura musical cantada’, Ph.D. thesis, Seville: Universidad de Sevilla.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gao, H., Lu, Z., Demberg, V. and Kasneki, E. (2021), ‘The Index of Cognitive Activity predicts cognitive processing load in linguistic task’, EMICS ’21: ACM CHI ’21 Workshop on Eye Movements as an Interface to Cognitive State, ACM, virtual, 14 May.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Gobet, F. and Simon, H. A. (1996), ‘Templates in chess memory: A mechanism for recalling several boards’, Cognitive Psychology, 31:1, pp. 1–40, https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1996.0011.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. González-Espinoza, A., Martínez-Mekler, G. and Lacasa, L. (2020), ‘Arrow of time across five centuries of classical music’, Physical Review Research, 2:3, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.033166.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Gudmundsdottir, H. R. (2010), ‘Pitch error analysis of young piano students’ music reading performances’, International Journal of Music Education, 28:1, pp. 61–70, https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761409351342.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hattie, J. (2010), Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, London: Routledge, https://inspirasifoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/John-Hattie-Visible-Learning_-A-synthesis-of-over-800-meta-analyses-relating-to-achievement-2008.pdf. Accessed 1 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Holder, E., Tilevich, E. and Gillick, A. (2015), ‘Musiplectics: Computational assessment of the complexity of music scores’, in G. C. Murphy and G. L. Steele Jr. (eds), 2015 ACM International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming and Software (Onward!), Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 25–30 October, New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 107–20, https://doi.org/10.1145/2814228.2814243.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Janurik, M., Surján, N. and Józsa, K. (2022), ‘The relationship between early word reading, phonological awareness, early music reading and musical aptitude’, Journal of Intelligence, 10:3, https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030050.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Jensen, M. C. (2016), Measuring Music Reading: A Guide to Assessment Methods, Ottawa: University of Ottawa.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kurkela, K. (1989), ‘Score, vision, action’, Contemporary Music Review, 4:1, pp. 417–35, https://doi.org/10.1080/07494468900640461.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Laske, O. E. (1988), ‘Introduction to cognitive musicology’, Computer Music Journal, 12:1, pp. 43–57, https://doi.org/10.2307/3679836.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Lepper, M., Oehler, M., Kinzler, H. and Trancón y Widemann, B. (2019), ‘Diminuendo al bottom: Clarifying the semantics of music notation by re-modeling’, PLOS One, 14:11, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224688.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Lerdahl, F. and Jackendoff, R. (1983), A Generative Theory of Tonal Music, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lopes, A. M. and Tenreiro Machado, J. A. (2019), ‘On the complexity analysis and visualization of musical information’, Entropy, 21:7, https://doi.org/10.3390/e21070669.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Madell, J. and Hébert, S. (2008), ‘Eye movements and music reading: Where do we look next?’, Music Perception, 26:2, pp. 157–70, https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2008.26.2.157.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Malbrán, S. (2007), El oído de la mente, Mexico: Akal, https://www.akal.mx/libro/el-oido-de-la-mente_44654/. Accessed 1 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Marshall, S. P. (2002), ‘The index of cognitive activity: Measuring cognitive workload’, in E. W. Hagen (ed.), Proceedings of the IEEE 7th Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants, Scottsdale, AZ: IEEE, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1042860. Accessed 1 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Matsubara, M., Okamoto, H., Sano, T., Susuki, H., Nobesawa, S. H. and Saito, H. (2009), ‘ScoreIlluminator: Automatic illumination of orchestra scores for readability improvement’, in R. Hamilton (ed.), Proceedings of the 2009 International Computer Music Conference, Montreal: Michigan Publishing, pp. 113–16, http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.bbp2372.2009.026.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Mencke, I., Quiroga-Martinez, D. R., Omigie, D., Michalareas, G., Schwarzacher, F., Haumann, N. T., Vuust, P. and Brattico, E. (2021), ‘Prediction under uncertainty: Dissociating sensory from cognitive expectations in highly uncertain musical contexts’, Brain Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2021.147664.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Mills, J. and McPherson, G. E. (2015), ‘Musical literacy: Reading traditional clef notation’, in G. E. McPherson (ed.), The Child as Musician, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 177–91, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198744443.003.0009.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Nordquist, R. (2020), ‘What is the minimal attachment principle in psycholinguistics?’, ThoughtCo, 12 February, https://www.thoughtco.com/minimal-attachment-principle-sentences-1691315. Accessed 1 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Ogura, H., Amano, H. and Kondo, M. (2013), ‘Gamma-Poisson distribution model for text categorization’, ISRN Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/829630.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Pease, A., Mahmoodi, K. and West, B. J. (2018), ‘Complexity measures of music’, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 108, pp. 82–86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2018.01.021.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Prince, J. B., Thompson, W. F. and Schmuckler, M. A. (2009), ‘Pitch and time, tonality and meter: How do musical dimensions combine?’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35:5, pp. 1598–617, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016456.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Ravesloot, C. J., van der Gijp, A., van der Schaaf, M. F., Huige, J. C. B. M., ten Cate, O., Vincken, K. L., Mol, Christian, P. and van Schaik, J. P. J. (2017), ‘Identifying error types in visual diagnostic skill assessment’, Diagnosis, 4:2, pp. 93–99, https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2016-0033.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Sancho Guinda, C. (2002), ‘Punctuation as readability and textuality factor in technical discourse’, Ibérica, Revista de La Asociación Europea de Lenguas Para Fines Específicos, 4, pp. 75–94, https://revistaiberica.org/index.php/iberica/article/view/506. Accessed 1 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Sayood, K. (2018), ‘Information theory and cognition: A review’, Entropy, 20:9, https://doi.org/10.3390/e20090706.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Sébastien, V., Ralambondrainy, H., Sébastien, O. and Conruyt, N. (2012), ‘Score analyzer: Automatically determining scores difficulty level for instrumental e-learning’, in F. Gouyon, P. Herrera, L. G. Martins and M. Müller (eds), 13th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference, Porto: FEUPEdições, pp. 571–76, https://hal.univ-reunion.fr/hal-01187227. Accessed 1 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Sheridan, H. and Kleinsmith, A. L. (2021), ‘Music reading expertise affects visual change detection: Evidence from a music-related flicker paradigm’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75:9, pp. 1643–52, https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211056924.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Sinha, A., Roy, D., Chaki, R., De, B. K. and Saha, S. K. (2019), ‘Readability analysis based on cognitive assessment using physiological sensing’, IEEE Sensors Journal, 19:18, pp. 8127–35, https://doi.org/10.1109/jsen.2019.2917834.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Slevc, L. R. and Okada, B. M. (2015), ‘Processing structure in language and music: A case for shared reliance on cognitive control’, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22:3, pp. 637–52, https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0712-4.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Song, Yang-Eui and Lee, Yong Kyu (2016), ‘A method for measuring the difficulty of music scores’, Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information, 21:4, pp. 39–46, https://doi.org/10.9708/jksci.2016.21.4.039.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Sprevak, M. (2020), ‘Two kinds of information processing in cognition’, Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 11:3, pp. 591–611, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-019-00438-9.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Stenberg, A. and Cross, I. (2019), ‘White spaces, music notation and the facilitation of sight-reading’, Scientific Reports, 9:1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41445-1.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Sudhindra, S., Ganesh, L. S. and Arshinder, K. (2017), ‘Knowledge transfer: An information theory perspective’, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 15:3, pp. 400–12, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41275-017-0060-z.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Tarasov, D. A., Sergeev, A. P. and Filimonov, V. V. (2015), ‘Legibility of textbooks: A literature review’, Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, pp. 1300–08, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.751.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Thornton, C. J. (2013), ‘A new way of linking information theory with cognitive science’, in K. Knauff (ed.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Berlin: Cognitive Science Society, pp. 3545–50, https://hdl.handle.net/10779/uos.23418374.v1. Accessed 1 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Viljoen, J. F. and Foxcroft, C. (2020), ‘Gaze patterns of skilled and unskilled sight readers focusing on the cognitive processes involved in reading key and time signatures’, International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 14:9, pp. 764–67, https://publications.waset.org/vol/165. Accessed 1 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Zénon, A., Solopchuk, O. and Pezzulo, G. (2019), ‘An information-theoretic perspective on the costs of cognition’, Neuropsychologia, 123, pp. 5–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.09.013.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Zhou, S., Jeong, H. and Green, P. A. (2017), ‘How consistent are the best-known readability equations in estimating the readability of design standards?’, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60:1, pp. 97–111, https://doi.org/10.1109/tpc.2016.2635720.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/jmte_00066_1
Loading
Towards a Readability Index for Music: A cognitive-based theoretical approach to complexity in written music
Journal of Music, Technology & Education 16, 247 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte_00066_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jmte_00066_1
/content/journals/10.1386/jmte_00066_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): mathematics education; music notation; musicology; readability formulas; reading; simulation models

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test