ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
Ancillary body movements in piano performance: a critical narrative review of structural coupling, audience cues, and cognitive-scaffolding claims.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although piano performance is often treated as centered on sound production, it also involves body movements commonly discussed as ancillary, whose observable role extends beyond immediate sound production. These movements have often been discussed through broad embodied-cognition frameworks, yet the empirical basis for specific mechanistic claims remains uneven. This critical narrative review synthesizes research on movements commonly discussed as ancillary from two related but unevenly developed bodies of evidence: their reported relationships with musical organization in performers, and their role as visual cues in audience evaluation. On the performer side, kinematic findings suggest that movements commonly discussed as ancillary are often systematically related to phrasing, meter, and expressive organization, but direct evidence for cognitive-load reduction remains limited. On the audience side, audiovisual studies indicate that visible kinematics can substantially shape judgments of expressivity, emotion, and performance quality, although the strength of these effects varies across tasks and study designs. Across both domains, the literature remains constrained by small samples, limited ecological breadth, and an overreliance on correlational evidence. We therefore argue that current findings support the relevance of movements commonly discussed as ancillary as structural and perceptual cues, but do not yet justify strong claims that they function as cognitive scaffolds. Future work should combine controlled kinematic manipulation with multimodal measurement to clarify how these movements may simultaneously serve overlapping communicative, regulatory, and biomechanical functions.
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.