ArticlePloS one2021
Quantitative analysis of piano performance proficiency focusing on difference between hands.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The biomechanics of piano playing: a systematic review of kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic literature.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Pooled it
- Looking Back While Reading Ahead: Regressive Fixations and Temporal Anticipation in Music Sight-Reading.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Self-supervised multimodal transformer for fine-grained detection of controlled perturbation events in piano performance.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Beyond the notes: Clarifying the role of expressivity in conveying musical emotion.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2026Article
- CRISPR/Cas9-based discovery of ccRCC therapeutic opportunities through molecular mechanism and immune microenvironment analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- The influence of age and gender on self-assessment of piano competencies.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Impact of expressive intentions on upper-body kinematics in two expert pianists.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Piano practice with emphasis on left hand for right handers: Developing pedagogical strategies based on motor control perspectives.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Self-Psychological Control and Creativity of Music Creation in Multimusic Environment.Journal of environmental and public health · 2022Article
- Molecular Characterization, Tumor Microenvironment Association, and Drug Susceptibility of DNA Methylation-Driven Genes in Renal Cell Carcinoma.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative evaluation of piano performance is of interests in many fields, including music education and computational performance rendering. Previous studies utilized features extracted from audio or musical instrument digital interface (MIDI) files but did not address the difference between hands (DBH), which might be an important aspect of high-quality performance. Therefore, we investigated DBH as an important factor determining performance proficiency. To this end, 34 experts and 34 amateurs were recruited to play two excerpts on a Yamaha Disklavier. Each performance was recorded in MIDI, and handcrafted features were extracted separately for the right hand (RH) and left hand (LH). These were conventional MIDI features representing temporal and dynamic attributes of each note and computed as absolute values (e. g., MIDI velocity) or ratios between performance and corresponding scores (e. g., ratio of duration or inter-onset interval (IOI)). These note-based features were rearranged into additional features representing DBH by simple subtraction between features of both hands. Statistical analyses showed that DBH was more significant in experts than in amateurs across features. Regarding temporal features, experts pressed keys longer and faster with the RH than did amateurs. Regarding dynamic features, RH exhibited both greater values and a smoother change along melodic intonations in experts that in amateurs. Further experiments using principal component analysis (PCA) and support vector machine (SVM) verified that hand-difference features can successfully differentiate experts from amateurs according to performance proficiency. Moreover, existing note-based raw feature values (Basic features) and DBH features were tested repeatedly via 10-fold cross-validation, suggesting that adding DBH features to Basic features improved F1 scores to 93.6% (by 3.5%) over Basic features. Our results suggest that differently controlling both hands simultaneously is an important skill for pianists; therefore, DBH features should be considered in the quantitative evaluation of piano performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.