ArticlePloS one2023
The impact of visual display of human motion on observers' perception of music performance.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ancillary body movements in piano performance: a critical narrative review of structural coupling, audience cues, and cognitive-scaffolding claims.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Article
- Does model type influence the effectiveness of combined action observation and motor imagery training for novices learning an Ankle Pick takedown?Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Increased body movement equals better performance? Not always! Musical style determines motion degree perceived as optimal in music performance.Psychological research · 2024Article
- Knee flexion of saxophone players anticipates tonal context of music.NPJ science of learning · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In investigating the influence of body movement in multimodal perception, human motion displays are frequently used as a means of visual standardization and control of external confounders. However, no principle is established regarding the selection of an adequate display for specific study purposes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of adopting 4 visual displays (point-light, stick figure, body mass, skeleton) on the observers' perception of music performances in 2 expressive conditions (immobile, projected expressiveness). Two hundred eleven participants rated 8 audio-visual samples in expressiveness, match between movement and music, and overall evaluation. The results revealed significant isolated main effects of visual display and expressive condition on the observers' ratings (in both, p < 0.001), and interaction effects between the two factors (p < 0.001). Displays closer to a human form (mostly skeleton, sometimes body mass) exponentiated the evaluations of expressiveness and music-movement match in the projected expressiveness condition, and of overall evaluation in the immobile condition; the opposite trend occurred with the simplified motion display (stick figure). Projected expressiveness performances were higher rated than immobile performances. Although the expressive conditions remained distinguishable across displays, the more complex ones potentiated the attribution of subjective qualities. We underline the importance of considering the variable display as an influencing factor in perceptual studies.
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.