Fig 1.
Transcription of an example stimuli with a medium complexity rhythm (son clave) and a medium complexity chord (four note chord with extensions). The upper bar denotes the hi-hat.
Fig 2.
Indices of rhythmic and harmonic complexity.
Scatterplots of measures of rhythmic complexity: (A) syncopation indices and (B) C-scores; and of harmonic complexity: (C) peak roughness and (D) inharmonicity.
Fig 3.
Ratings as a function of complexity.
Boxplots showing the interaction between rhythmic and harmonic complexity for wanting to move ratings (A) and pleasure ratings (B). Boxplots represent ratings aggregated over items within each level of complexity for visualization purposes. Center line, median; box limits, upper and lower quartiles; whiskers, 1.5x interquartile range; points, outliers. Dots represent means calculated from the raw ratings.
Fig 4.
Path model based on the mediation analysis showing the relations between the predictors—rhythmic and harmonic complexity; the mediator—pleasure ratings; and the outcome variable—wanting to move ratings. Regression estimates for the effects of rhythmic and harmonic complexity on wanting to move ratings are from the mediation model that takes into account the effect of pleasure ratings on wanting to move ratings. The dashed line indicates that the direct effect of the medium—high harmonic complexity contrast was no longer significant once pleasure ratings were included in the model. L = Low, M = Medium, H = High; * p < .05.
Fig 5.
Ratings as a function of musical training.
A) Box plot showing the interaction between group and rhythmic complexity. Lines represent means calculated from raw ratings. B) Box plot of the effect of musical training on pleasure ratings. Boxplots represent ratings aggregated over items within each level of complexity for visualization purposes. Center line, median; box limits, upper and lower quartiles; whiskers, 1.5x interquartile range; points, outliers. Dots represent means calculated from the raw ratings.