Table 1.
Demographic information, and independent samples t-tests comparing musicians and non-musicians on the Goldsmiths’ Musical Sophistication Index (GoldMSI), The Barcellona Music Reward Questionnaire (BMRQ), the Short Test for Music Preference (STOMP), Big Five Inventory (BFI) and Musical Ear Test (MET) scores.
P-values are FDR corrected, *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.
Fig 1.
A. Peak acoustic roughness of harmonic complexity conditions. B. Notational transcriptions of chords used for each level of harmonic complexity. For the octave, the final chord was repeated twice to obtain five (see methods).
Fig 2.
Effects of harmonic complexity and musicianship on chord liking ratings.
Tukey-style boxplots represent the raw data, with the horizontal lines representing the median. Red and cyan dots and black connecting lines represent estimated means from the linear mixed effects model.
Table 2.
Model coefficients and test statistics, testing effects of musicianship group, linear and polynomial effects of harmonic complexity, and interaction between group and harmonic complexity.
** indicates significance at p <. 001.
Table 3.
Post-hoc contrast estimates, comparing each level of harmonic complexity within each musicianship group, and each musicianship group within each level of harmonic complexity.
* indicates p < .05.
Fig 3.
Scatterplots and Pearson’s correlation coefficients (m = musician, nm = non-musician).
The y axis represents the difference in ratings between medium—low harmonic complexity. The x axes represent scores on individual difference measures. P values are corrected for multiple comparisons using the FDR method, with significance at p < .05.