Sight-Reading Versus Repertoire Performance on the Piano: A Case Study Using High-Speed Motion Analysis

This study was intended to examine whether differences exist in the motions employed by pianists when they are sightreading versus performing repertoire and to determine whether these differences can be quantified using high-speed motion capture technology. A secondary question of interest was whether or not an improvement in the efficiency of motion could be observed between two sight-reading trials of the same musical excerpt. This case study employed one subject and a six-camera digital infrared camera system to capture the motion of the pianist playing two trials of a repertoire piece and two trials of a sight-reading excerpt. Angular displacements and velocities were calculated for bilateral shoulder, elbow, wrist, and index finger joints. The findings demonstrate the usefulness of high-speed motion capture technology for analyzing motions of pianists during performance, showing that the subject’s motions were less efficient in sight-reading tasks than is repertoire tasks. Med Probl Perform Art 2006;21:10–16. Pianists are frequently confronted with situations that necessitate adequate sight-reading skills. This widespread need for sight-reading at the piano may be due in part to pianists’ participation in collaborative music-making, as professional pianists often sight-read in the course of collaborating with other musicians or accompanying choral ensembles. The size of the piano literature also contributes to the need, as the repertoire is so voluminous that no one player can be familiar with all solo and collaborative pieces written for piano. Recordings of piano literature tend to be restricted to the most well-known and familiar pieces, and recordings of pedagogical piano literature, in particular, are sparse. The nature of sight-reading varies widely. The pianist might have a few minutes to examine a score or might have to read the music with little or no preparation. In any case, the sight-reading task may be viewed in direct contrast to a repertoire task, in which the pianist has engaged in weeks and often months of cognitive and physical training, thus gaining a high level of familiarity with the music being performed. DEMANDS OF SIGHT-READING Sight-reading entails a number of demands that can be distinguished from those inherent in the performance of practiced repertoire. Basic elements that must be attended to during sight-reading include: 1. Rhythm: meter, duration, patterns, accentuation 2. Melody: pitch, direction, movement (skips vs leaps, etc.), and patterns 3. Harmony: chord structure, chord progressions 4. Context: articulation, expressive markings, musical structure and form In addition to these basic constructs, there are also more subtle cues—such as maintaining balance between the hands or attention to performance practice—embedded in the music that may or may not be rendered in a sight-reading attempt based on the experience and musical sophistication of the instrumentalist. Prerequisites for successful sight-reading include the ability to recognize musical patterns, generate a large-scale performance plan to govern performance of the piece as a whole, and anticipate how the music continues.1 In addition to perceiving and decoding aspects of the score, successful readers must anticipate problems while continuing to observe musical markings and evaluate sight-reading execution in order to correct the performance as necessary.2 Piano sight-reading poses a special visual challenge. Looking at the musical score must be balanced with the need to look at the hand and fingers to accurately place them on various parts of the keyboard in order to play correct pitches. The pianist easily can lose his or her place in the score as the eye moves and refocuses. In contrast, rehearsed performance typically negates the visual difficulties of score reading, as memorization is common practice. Performance of practiced repertoire allows for free recall of musical materials and physical mastery of requisite motor skill patterns. Each time a repertoire piece is practiced, the pianist makes more inferences about correct pitches and other musical details.1 10 Medical Problems of Performing Artists Sight-Reading Versus Repertoire Performance on the Piano: A Case Study Using High-Speed Motion Analysis Brenda Wristen, Ph.D., Sharon Evans, Ph.D., and Nicholas Stergiou, Ph.D. Dr. Wristen is Assistant Professor in the School of Music, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska; Dr. Evans is Associate Professor in the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital, Lincoln, Nebraska; and Dr. Stergiou is Director of the HPER Biomechanics Laboratory, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska. Presented in part as a poster presentation at the National Conference on Keyboard Pedagogy, Oak Brook, Illinois, August 3–5, 2005. Primary funding for this study was through a grant-in-aid from the University of Nebraska Research Council. Data analysis was supported by a Faculty Development Fellowship awarded by the University of Nebraska at Omaha to Dr. Stergiou. Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Brenda Wristen, Ph.D., 343 Westbrook Music Bldg, Lincoln, NE 68588-0100. Tel 402-472-1438; fax 402-472-1384; email [email protected]. Underlying all of these cognitive and physical considerations is the daunting constraint of sight-reading with continuity, in “real-time,” without stopping to decipher the written score or correct mistakes. Maintaining a continuous rhythmic pulse is paramount. The musician must keep playing during sight-reading, even if he or she executes notation improperly. Studies conducted regarding sight-reading ability to date have fallen into three broad categories: 1. Cognitive/perceptual, including eye movements, perception of notation and other aspects of the score, and the influence of visual and auditory feedback 2. Factors affecting success in sight-reading achievement, including differences pertaining to specialization among pianists 3. Educational/pedagogical approaches, which focus on sight-reading acquisition or improvement with help of specific instruction or pacing devices. The literature reviewed for the present study focused on the first two categories of sight-reading study. Cognitive studies on sight-reading to date have primarily focused on determining what internal processes successful sight-readers use in comparison with those musicians who are less skilled or less experienced at sight-reading. Studies in this area to date have focused primarily on eye movements,35 pattern recognition and “chunking” musical details into larger perceptual units,6,7 and perception of musical notion within a larger context.8–10 Cognitive/perceptual studies have addressed the processing work done by the brain during the sight-reading task, rather than examining physical motions. While motor execution has not been the primary focus in the aforementioned types of studies, several studies focusing on cognition during the sight-reading task have considered motor patterning outcomes in relation to cognitive processing. There is some merit to the traditional and intuitive pedagogical notion that the best way to improve sight-reading ability is to engage in sight-reading activity. Both performance accuracy and consistency of fingering correlate positively with expertise.11 Expert piano sight-readers develop rule-governed patterns of motor response in their fingers that are utilized on recognition of familiar visual notational patterns. As expertise increases, musicians are able to combine movements into variable patterns that appropriately execute musical notation. Skilled motor performance in any human endeavor rarely consists of rigidly programmed motor sequences, where each individual movement arises invariably and inflexibly from the prior movement. Shaffer12 noted that expert pianists were able to develop a mental plan that specifically addressed the intended sight-reading outcome and employ a flexible motor programming system that efficiently enacted the required muscular contractions. It is thus apparent that skilled sightreaders have better developed and more flexible motor programming patterns when sight-reading at their instrument than do novice sight-readers. Even for those players with this advanced motor programming ability, it is likely that sight-reading is more physically awkward than the performance of repertoire that has been previously practiced. In their examination of pianists learning new repertoire, Halsband, Binkofski, and Camp9 found that as players moved from the beginning stages of working with a piece to more advanced interpretive and expressive phases, the perception of the task changed. Motor skills were less efficient during the early learning phases of a piece. As pianists began to perceive progressively larger metrical groupings as a result of practice, their motor patterns became increasingly more efficient. Just how these motor sequences become ingrained in pianists or other instrumentalists remains a question for further research. As can be seen from a review of the literature, physical motion during sight-reading has not been a focus of research. Many pianists and piano pedagogues have asserted that they find the experience of sight-reading to be more physically taxing than performing or practicing repertoire pieces, and some further suspect that excessive sight-reading can expose pianists to injury. William Westney13 encapsulated this belief, saying: “There is certainly a direct link, though it has been little discussed, between high-level sight-reading and performance injuries.” This widespread perception underscores the unique challenges inherent in sight-reading, which until now have not been investigated from a quantitative scientific perspective. The purpose of the present study was to identify whether the use of motion-capture technology can identify quantifiable differences in the motions made by pianists when sight-reading versus performing practiced repertoire. If these differences do exist, the goal is to describe these differences and draw conclusions regarding motion efficiency based on the quantified data. Inefficient movement may contribute to muscle and tissue fatigue and pain and is often viewed as a factor in the development of various injuries. A secondary question examined whether differences in motion can be observed from one sight-reading attempt to the next, which may demonstrate adaptations of motor skills resulting from a single reading of a musical excerpt.