Intensity of neural signals lead to faster learning...?

[nyiregyhazi]

Okay, fine, you win.  Then simply read what I'm writing out loud.

I'm not an actor. However, I think someone who is would have tremendous mental effort on their hands- if they want to get into the warped mindset of one who makes such selective use of logic. They'd have plenty of stuff to get their teeth into, in order to capture the character properly. Does the character really believe these things? Is he just a troll even? Is he lying to himself, to support a theory that he is unwilling to let go of? There's much they could work with.

[ajspiano]

..

And, while my previous post may have reference a more jazz/modern musical situation - the reality is that it applies to all music, solo or ensemble and whatever genre.

Muscle memory is a great help in many aspects of learning, but its not something to be relied on too heavily for the truly accomplished pianist.

Practically all of the worshiped great composers were strong improvisers and many works are known to be written down versions of an improvisation, or that composers were capable of improvising to similar standards as their written works. Their technique is strong enough through adequate study and practice that they can hear something in their head and execute it. If you can not do that and need to learn/memorise the pattern of motion as a specific series then you lack technique.

When you know a piece well enough, you can freely alter the motions to support a musical aim from dynamics to rhythm to the notes themselves. These actions are lead by mental sound image. If you rely on a heavily rehearsed muscle memory, learnt without reference to musical intent you will be on autopilot, you're not in control. This is why the strong pianists can do improvisations on a theme. They do not run on auto, they mentally project a sound and execute motions that fit the sound. If you are thoroughly accomplished as compared to the piece you are studying you go straight to this way of execution, there is no need to break the piece up into tiny sections or elements of execution.

Edit:
For someone with fluent technique..  really, this is almost akin to suggesting that I'd remember a sentence better if I (without consideration to their sound or meaning) mouthed the words really fast first.

Let alone those dumb advertising agencies, using music to promote their products..  - Its way easier to remember things with conscious attention for the musical sounds.

[charliefreak]

I was thinking the same thing as ajspiano.  That this is akin to memorizing a bit of text by SCREAMING it very fast over and over.

In my experience it's the deliberateness of the playing that makes me remember every note more clearly.  That, and my brain making lots of connections about the piece that give it relevance as to what should come next.  That is not part of this discussion, but for most people, I think this is the most important part.  It's extremely difficult to remember 50 words of random text, but quite easy if the words are related to each other (such as a story).

Regardless, without any science to back it up other than my own personal experimentation - practicing pieces over and over again at tempo, or faster, will lead to scary memory lapses where I can remember moving from one harmony to another but can't remember the exact sequence of notes.

A great many professional musicians here have worked hard for many years, trying to find solutions to faster memorization.  They are 'experts' to some degree - and so their opinions should be valued and pondered carefully.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that I think playing a piece very fast and loud (unmusically) in order to memorize it is a disaster in another way.  What I mean is that you're learning the piece WRONG to start with.  We're not talking about typing here, where the same result is achieved no matter how much key velocity is applied.  The thing that we call 'polishing' a piece is actually the act of continually relearning it.

This is why i believe that, when working on a new piece, one should try to work on the entire interpretation from the very start (after playing through it several times at whatever speed possible to try to understand what the composer is getting at), to minimize the amount of relearning that must occur.

If you memorize the piece with no interpretation, now you must go back and relearn the entire thing (a.k.a. polish it).  Why not make it as correct as possible from the start?

I have personally tried the method of just playing the piece in a very flat way to get the notes memorized and then go back and polish.  I find that this can lead to memory lapses where I forget that, for example, a repeat was f-mp and because I memorized it by simply playing forte over and over, I play it that way under pressure by accident. And that is CLEARLY because I played f-f many many times to get it memorized.  I've seen many concert pianists slip up this way, and I would bet my bank account it's because they memorized it in the way I described.

So in a nutshell, this loud/fast method you are describing has some serious issues with it, mainly that you are making an underlying assumption that memorizing a piece only amounts to pressing the right keys, like you are typing.  But in fact, memorizing a piece means memorizing the correct key velocity for each note, and the phrasing, dynamics etc.

I apologize if someone has already covered those issues.  I didn't read every single post in this thread.

[hmpiano]

Any accomplished pianist focuses on the sound they wish to create, and puts "effort" into that, and lets the physical take care of itself.

I agree with that 100%.  

I'd like to thank faulty for attempting to bring some neurological knowledge to the process of playing the piano - no one else has ever attempted and Christ, it's a difficult field! (and don't let someone's cries of bullshit or even autism??? get to you - that's just crude bullying).  I especially love the image of axons waving about - any more on this?

I would guess the intensity effect you speak of could come from bigger sensory signals coming back to the brain? and as I've said, it definitely works.  The most efficient way though is mental rehearsal.  Make sure your fingering is correct then sit down with the score and see yourself playing.  Presumably this way you can over learn by speeding up with nothing detrimental.  From personal experience I've never found anything better for memory than this mind's eye practice.  The real challenge for memory would be getting the amygdala involved - any ideas how to do that?

[nyiregyhazi]

I'd like to thank faulty for attempting to bring some neurological knowledge to the process of playing the piano - no one else has ever attempted and Christ, it's a difficult field!

On the contrary, plenty of people have done so- and without forming irrational conclusions based upon the schoolboy of error of thinking that quantity can compensate for quality when performing extremely intricate tasks.

A university professor told me about the nature of neural pathways some twenty years or so back. I seem to recall having discovered the same principles in a book more recently. Chang deals in the same issues- although I forget if he directly references the neurons or sticks to the practical consequences. In any case, for the brain to form a consistent neural pathway quickly, it requires consistent quality of repetition. Just one error can cause significant damage to the quality and it make take as many as three or four accurate repetitions ("accurate" in quality of movement- not just in playing the notes right) to fully cement the accurate habit back into complete assurance. If you do not maintain consistency (not just in the notes but in the qualities of the movement), you do not develop a good quality pathway.

That is why pianists should not casually allow errors in practise nor push their limits too much. However, the exception is where slow movements produce the right notes but are not transferable to speed. In this case, it is valuable to test yourself by doing a small chunk fast. If the quality of movement is unsuitable, it's more useful to expose that- rather than develop a faulty neural pathway that will never permit speed. In this case speed is deliberately done to potentially SPOIL a bad pathway and allow a better replacement to start being formed- not to cement a supposedly useful pathway. As soon as you have a good quality of movement, you need to start getting it consistent- not push it to it for the sake of getting more repetitions. Speed is for checking the quality- not building it. I find it most effective to start slow for a segment, then go faster to check, but always try to finish slow again- to end with a quality that has been informed by what is need at speed but which has the assurance and precision of going slower. Even in pieces that are well learned, there's nothing more harmful playing them fast over and over. It causes acquired neural pathways to deteriorate. It neither helps to generate new ones nor helps to cement anything.

I would guess the intensity effect you speak of could come from bigger sensory signals coming back to the brain? and as I've said, it definitely works.  The most efficient way though is mental rehearsal.  Make sure your fingering is correct then sit down with the score and see yourself playing.  Presumably this way you can over learn by speeding up with nothing detrimental.  

Not true. Not remotely so. The reason few but geniuses can do this effectively is that it's so hard to do it well. Wittgenstein (philosoper, not the one armed pianist) realised when he played wrong notes in mental rehearsal. If you imagine that you cannot make errors in mental practise, you probably aren't processing the level of detail that a master of the method is capable of. Few get to the level where they can perceive such things. For most people, the quality of the picture in mental rehearsal is woefully incomplete- which is why pianists like Volodos or Nyiregyhazi who can maintain abilities primarily through mental rehearsal are so rare. Most of us need to practise at an instrument to get a full picture. For those who are less than geniuses, we need to mentally prepare very small chunks (often considerably less than a bar) and then instantly check the results at the keyboard. Simply reading through the score without checking the results tends to be rather ineffective for all but the most experienced at actually executing what has been pictured- to an EXTREMELY high standard. A mental picture is worthless unless it can be consistently be transferred into an actual result. If you cannot do so, reading a score (without testing the mental picture against what you can actually do in the real world) tends to be woefully incomplete.

However, we need to do so with care and awareness. Doing it quickly over and over is the most detrimental approach to solid neural pathways that there is.

[hmpiano]

A university professor told me about the nature of neural pathways some twenty years or so back.

You state this and then go off on some great rant on general practice advice! with the word neural pathways thrown in occasionally!  The advice is all good common sense but not neurology, if you're talking about the neurology of piano playing your talking about axons, dendrites and muscle spindles - something faulty is having an admirable attempt at doing.

Not true. Not remotely so. The reason few but geniuses can do this effectively is that it's so hard to do it well.

Depends on the piece how hard it is to do but it's my favourite way to memorize. There's no better pastime than sitting in an armchair seeing your hands play, hearing the music, and replaying, reconstituting and mulling over the piece at your leisure.  I was doing this in the doctor's waiting room today!

[nyiregyhazi]

You state this and then go off on some great rant on general practice advice! with the word neural pathways thrown in occasionally!  The advice is all good common sense but not neurology, if you're talking about the neurology of piano playing your talking about axons, dendrites and muscle spindles - something faulty is having an admirable attempt at doing.

In the same sense that you cannot speak of how to play the piano without specifically naming every individual muscle? Or you can't speak of mechanics without analysing every individual atom separately from the rest? It's about the big picture. Usage of terminology (not that I even saw any beyond rather generic reference to neurons) does not make fantastical theories any more scientific- particularly when they run in specific conflict to widely accepted knowledge about how learning takes place.

[hmpiano]

I'm interested in hearing what happens to memory from the axion and dendrite level outwards.  Maybe faulty can do that.  I know it from the other end.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm interested in hearing what happens to memory from the axion and dendrite level outwards.  Maybe faulty can do that.  I know it from the other end.

Seeing as he thinks that doing a very precise task very quickly over and over produces stronger neural pathways, I'd advise you to obtain information from alternative source. A little knowledge (that is based on just one factor is a complex whole that consists of many interdependent variables) is a dangerous thing. As long as there are no personal inferences, however, (but merely cold recitations from textbooks) you might be alright- but personally I'm only interested in that which has practical consequences.

[faulty_damper]

Here is a video comparing the growth of a normal neuron and a mutated neuron.  Notice how the dendrites wave back and forth as they extend their processes.  The video is sped to show rapid growth.

And here is what happens when an axon terminal makes contact with a dendrite.  According to the video, you can see that some part of the dendrite is actually taken up by the axon and transported back to the cell body.

And this is what goes on in a neuron.  Notice the vesicles that are transported throughout the axon and dendrites, both back and forth.

[faulty_damper]

I'm interested in hearing what happens to memory from the axion and dendrite level outwards.  Maybe faulty can do that.  I know it from the other end.

The only way we know we have a memory is when we recall it, either explicitly or through changes in behavior.  But, our memory does not actually exist as a stable entity...

Here's the funny thing:
The moment we recall a memory, we actually alter that memory.  The more we recall it, the more likely that memory will be altered in some way.  But if you only recalled it once, that first recall will be the more accurate representation of an actual event.  Why is that?  Because the act of recalling a memory exposes that "memory" to a new act of learning.

Example gratis:

EVENT
recall changes EVENT to Event A
subsequent recall changes Event A into Event Ab
subsequent recall changes it to Event Abc
Event Abcd
Event Abdce  [note the change in order here]
Event Abdcef  [which is subsequently remembered in the same order]
Event Abdcefg  [and each new recall adds something to it maintaining the change in order]
Event Acefgh  [notice that a key bit of information was dropped, the b]


So in the above example, the more you recall the information, the more embellishments, either accidental or intentional, you can potentially make that had nothing to do with the original EVENT.  Did you notice that in the last recall, that d was also dropped?  If you didn't, that's one example of how your memory works (or doesn't work.) You don't notice certain changes.

The key to understanding this is that memory is not in any way stable.  Just as learning is the process of memorizing, recalling a memorized event exposes it to new learning.  In other words, you learn from your memories.  This is how you are able to improve upon a piece you are practicing.  The more you practice it (the more you recall it) the more changes you can make.  In this case, the changes are intentional.


I don't know if I answered your question, though.  You were asking for a physiological answer?

Synapses may not be permanent.  According to most recent research into the behavior of axon terminals, it may make contact numerous times with a dendrite (or any other part of a neighboring neuron, possibly even itself) several times before it becomes stable and free-communicating.  When it becomes stable, it can be described as a formed a memory.  However, if that synapse is not used, the terminal may break contact on its own or, in the case of a highly stable connection, microglia (the terminators and trash collectors of the brain) will come along and prune that synapse.

Microglia roam the brain.  It will extend its processes and make contact with synapses for several minutes.  If it detects that the synapse is functioning, it will move on and find other synapses and repeat this process.  If it detects that a synapse is defective or not used, it will remove it.  Thus, this is one process of forgetting.

Microglia doesn't just prune damaged and unused synapses.  It also destroys damaged and unused neurons.  This is another process of forgetting.

[faulty_damper]

I would guess the intensity effect you speak of could come from bigger sensory signals coming back to the brain? and as I've said, it definitely works....

The real challenge for memory would be getting the amygdala involved - any ideas how to do that?

While I wasn't originally thinking in terms of the feedback mechanism, you are correct in that feedback is vitally necessary for learning.  It works both ways, output and input.

The amygdala is involved in fear which is directly related to a host of other physiological responses that are generally detrimental to learning.  So imagine someone holding a 6-chamber gun to your head as you practice.  Only one chamber has the bullet.  Each mistake you make, the trigger is pulled.  You won't be remembering much about the piece you're practicing but you will remember the gun... until it goes off.

You may mean the hippocampus which is involved in long-term storage.  The only thing I can concisely say that involves the hippocampus is: sleep.  Get regular, restful, uninterrupted sleep.  Naps also work.

[faulty_damper]

In any case, for the brain to form a consistent neural pathway quickly, it requires consistent quality of repetition. Just one error can cause significant damage to the quality and it make take as many as three or four accurate repetitions ("accurate" in quality of movement- not just in playing the notes right) to fully cement the accurate habit back into complete assurance. If you do not maintain consistency (not just in the notes but in the qualities of the movement), you do not develop a good quality pathway.

This is generally true when you take a look from a broader perspective.  However, this is not the case when you look at the details.

When you learn something new, you are both using preexisting connections and new ones.  The problem with using preexisting connections is that they may most likely interfere with making new ones.  This is one problem new learners of complex activities, such as dance or playing an instrument, face.  They can move their bodies but not in the right way.  It would be impossible for them to move it in the right way because of those pre-existing connections and not-yet-formed new ones.  In other words, it's easier to do it wrong than it is to do it right.  But, they don't know that they are doing it wrong because their default behavior is so similar to the necessary one.

The reason you can't play it perfectly the first time through has everything to do with lack of specific memory - the lack of well-used neural pathways.  It takes time to develop this and requires making new synapse and pruning unnecessary ones.  In other words, you have to both learn and forget in order to learn a new behavior.  You simply can't get it right the first time.  This is impossible, neurologically speaking.

A university professor told me about the nature of neural pathways some twenty years or so back.

Twenty years ago, neuroscience was still in its infancy.  We didn't have very good tools or understanding of the brain.  It has only been in the past decade that there have been huge advancements in technology, understanding, and techniques that aid in our understanding of the brain.  The pace at which we are starting to understand the processes is accelerating.  Something written two years ago may very easily be out of date.

[hmpiano]

The amygdala is involved in fear which is directly related to a host of other physiological responses that are generally detrimental to learning.

I do mean the amygdala.  If you happen to turn a corner and bump into a white bear you'll remember that forever.  If you can harness that power of memory then surely Bob's your uncle?

It's going to take me a while to get my head round your other posts.

[faulty_damper]

That's fear.  Fear is the worst thing to use as a tool for learning complex, higher order mental tasks.  Fear is a great thing to help you prevent any future run-ins with polar bears but not for playing the piano.  I'm speaking as a psychologist here, not a neuroscientist.

A strict parent or teacher who uses abusive tactics harms the development of the child because of the physiological responses to fear which alters brain functions which alters behavior.

Child Abuse Leaves Mark on Brain
https://www.livescience.com/18453-child-abuse-brain.html

However, perhaps for short bouts of imagined fear for specific sections of music may make it more memorable.  But I'm not certain.  I'll have to research this.

[werq34ac]

I agree with the brain stuff. I don't agree with the fast and loud stuff which you haven't yet connected to intensity. No one is arguing against the fact that intensity leads to more efficient brain function and therefore practice and memorization (since you seem so keen on separating the two). My point is that speed and volume don't necessarily equate to intensity. Usually I find that the further I get from my preferred tempo (how fast I feel a piece should go) the less intensity I feel, and the less I get done in practice (even in memorization practice).

[ajspiano]

Agree with that one, using fear in this context would be very detrimental.

Also agree with werq, I never disagreed with any of the neuroscience as far as how memories are created/strengthened, only that loud/fast is best way to do it in relation to piano.

[faulty_damper]

I think I need to clarify a common confusion that's prevalent.

When I suggest fast or loud, I do not mean you use these strategies to learn the entire piece straight through so that you end up being able to play the piece fast and loud and otherwise unmusically or technically deficient.

What I am suggesting is that you can memorize faster, using less repetitions, sections of the music by increasing the mental effort required to play.  Fast and loud were strategies as was firmness to achieve this so that you don't have to repeat so many times before it is memorized.  If playing fast/loud/firm allows you to memorize a section in 5 repetitions as opposed to 10, then it has served its purpose and you've cut the amount of time by more than half you would have spent practicing.  You can now use that time to practice the best technique or musical qualities that you want to achieve.

If you like the idea of saving time and increasing the rate of memorization over regular repetition, try it.  I've been doing this with a new piece and dayum! the parts that I've used this strategy with are already memorized.  Normally, I'd still be needing to read the music, and I do for the last page since I haven't gotten to practicing it but when I do, I will be using the aforementioned strategies just so I can memorize faster and save time.  What will I do with the time I saved?  Practicing to improve my technique and musicianship, of course.

[hmpiano]

Is it not true that music is about emotion (arousal)?  I am personally aroused by more or less every note in a piece i.e. I seem to have a personal relationship with each one, weird though that sounds.  It could be even more pronounced in the subconscious - I'm just not aware of it.  Amygdala is the bridge between arousal and memory (not just fear).  Can that be how I memorize?  Will it improve if I deepen my relationship with each note - make it more intense?

https://www.psych.nyu.edu/phelpslab/papers/04_CON_V14.pdf

Faulty. are you talking about muscle memory?

[faulty_damper]

Faulty. are you talking about muscle memory?

At the expense of being accused of promoting the practice of poor technique (again): yes.  We are concerned with playing the notes in the correct order from memory, completely free from reading the score.  There are other ways to memorize the score but we are primarily concerned with playing it which requires actually playing it.

Is it not true that music is about emotion (arousal)?  I am personally aroused by more or less every note in a piece i.e. I seem to have a personal relationship with each one, weird though that sounds.  It could be even more pronounced in the subconscious - I'm just not aware of it.

The emotional-arousal theory states that things that evoke emotions are better remembered than the bland.  This explains why you remember horrific, tragic events that happened more than a decade ago more than what you had for lunch yesterday.  Emotions are deeply tied to long-term memory.

I still remember almost 11 years ago that I was woken up by the alarm radio tuned to NPR and hearing something which I thought was a joke.  I was half awake in bed in the early morning of September 11, 2001.  What I heard sounded so ridiculous that I had to get up and walk down to the kitchen to turn on the TV just to confirm this wasn't a joke.  It wasn't a joke.  And while emotions didn't flood my eyes then, it does now as I recall.

But the thing about memory, as I mentioned before, is that every time you recall it, you alter it no matter how strong the emotions were at the time of encoding.  The strength of encoding an emotionally charged memory is exactly the same for the mundane.  You simply remember more details of the event because your emotions compel you to put in more effort into do so.  The act of memorization requires the act of paying attention and we all payed a lot of attention that September morning.

Do You Really Remember Where You Were on 9/11?
https://www.livescience.com/15914-flashbulb-memory-september-11.html

 Amygdala is the bridge between arousal and memory (not just fear).  Can that be how I memorize?  Will it improve if I deepen my relationship with each note - make it more intense

I don't know enough about how activation of the amygdala influences other areas of the brain such as the motor cortex.  I can't answer it from a knowledge point of view.  But as a psychologist, I'd simply run experiments trying to increase the rate of memorization of a complex motor task by invoking some kind of intense pleasure and in another, invoking some kind of fear.  I'd compare the results to a control to see if there is improvement.  My hypothesis would be that for complex motor tasks, emotional affect would have little to no improvement over regular repetition.  However, recall of the experiment that took place would be increased, just not improvement in the rate of learning the motor task.

Why do I say it won't have an effect?  I don't know why I think this.  I've read thousands of articles in the past few years and not one of them has directly addressed this question.  The most common results are that emotions improve recall of episodic events but I can't recall reading anything about improving motor function recall or increasing the rate of memorization.

I'll have to think about this more.

[hmpiano]

How about this for contemplating:  The eyes evolved from light sensitive skin structures.  To see your performance in your mind's eye is to feel the movements.  Feeling the movements is tantamount to a motor task.  I'm sure you're aware there is plenty of evidence now that imagining carrying out a task innervates the relevant motor neural pathway.  Ultimately, for me, muscle memory comes quite easy, but is unreliable.  I need this mind's eye stuff.

[nyiregyhazi]

The reason you can't play it perfectly the first time through has everything to do with lack of specific memory - the lack of well-used neural pathways.  It takes time to develop this and requires making new synapse and pruning unnecessary ones.  In other words, you have to both learn and forget in order to learn a new behavior.  You simply can't get it right the first time.  This is impossible, neurologically speaking.

So, you've now abandoned the point that you had been incessantly repeating and completely moved the goal posts? Before it was all about the idea of having perfect technique and only needing to commit the notes to memory (which was your basis for claiming the speed will not spoil the quality of movement applied)? Yet now you're saying it's impossible to get something right first time under any circumstances? And that supposedly reinforces the idea that it's anything less than foolhardy to think that launching into something fast and loud will of achieve better learning than placing sensitivity and awareness as the primary goals? Knowing raw information from textbooks is not going to be of any use unless you use coherent logic when applying it to the real world.

None of what you stated conflicts with the point I made- which is that accuracy of repetition is the best way to build an effective neural pathway. However, your own words in the last post squarely conflict with your nonsensical theory about going fast to build better memory. When you go fast without prior preparation, the brain defaults to existing neural pathways- for general technical issues. However, it does not know all the specific requirements of the particular piece- which means that the new requirements are going to be very poorly executed unless you take your time figuring out the optimal movements. If you think you should go fast and loud then the movements will be done erratically, inconsistently and less precisely than they could be done if you start with sensitivity and precision as the optimal goal. After all, there is no specific pathway for them yet- only more general ones. Nothing you stated negates the fact that if you want to go on to perform a very precise movement reliably, you will build the most assured neural pathway by performing it with consistency. How the hell do you propose to do that when starting a movement fast? It's outright foolhardiness to try to falsely synthesise an argument for something that runs so squarely and transparently in the face of accepted knowledge. Are you familiar with the Feldenkrais method? Do you think they'd learn more about how to control the body if they swung their arms around their heads like a child emulating a helicopter- rather than by going slowly and sensitively? Going slowly and sensitively allows the brain to learn new neural pathways, during a process of noticing what is useful and what is detrimental. Going quickly without preparation defaults to existing ones and fills in any gaps under duress- without sensitivity or precision. Perhaps above all- IT MINIMISES THE FEEDBACK ABOUT THE QUALITY OF MOVEMENT!

No matter how much cold information you might quote from textbooks, if you're not going to use sound logic, you're not going to come to conclusions that reflect reality.

Twenty years ago, neuroscience was still in its infancy.  We didn't have very good tools or understanding of the brain.  It has only been in the past decade that there have been huge advancements in technology, understanding, and techniques that aid in our understanding of the brain.  The pace at which we are starting to understand the processes is accelerating.  Something written two years ago may very easily be out of date.

Personally I have little to no interest at all in precise scientific detail on this issue- UNLESS it has a practical consequence with regard to pianism. That is why I am interested about the fact that rushing a movement early on reduces the quality of learning. This has not gone out of the window in any recent advances. I am not personally interested in the latest precise details of things that do not directly inform me about the best procedures for learning.

[nyiregyhazi]

The key to understanding this is that memory is not in any way stable.  Just as learning is the process of memorizing, recalling a memorized event exposes it to new learning.  In other words, you learn from your memories.  This is how you are able to improve upon a piece you are practicing.  The more you practice it (the more you recall it) the more changes you can make.  In this case, the changes are intentional.

recall changes EVENT to Event A
subsequent recall changes Event A into Event Ab
subsequent recall changes it to Event Abc
Event Abcd
Event Abdce  [note the change in order here]
Event Abdcef  [which is subsequently remembered in the same order]
Event Abdcefg  [and each new recall adds something to it maintaining the change in order]
Event Acefgh  [notice that a key bit of information was dropped, the b]

I have a feeling that you may be applying something to completely the wrong context (also, you didn't define your terms- I have no idea what a change in order of the letters is supposed to signify there). When is the last time you heard a pianist end up playing a whole different piece of music- simply because he didn't look at the score for a few weeks? Memory of music does not automatically evolve outside of conscious control, like memory of an event does (except in fine details of interpretation). There are correction mechanisms.

You are presumably referring to something that applies to memories of events- which get distorted considerably over time and often get twisted to the point of containing countless inaccuracies (leaving it impossible to return to the initial perception). This does not happen with musicians and compositions- because errors are picked up and returned to the correct reading. The memory of a note is just right or wrong and you can rapidly find out if it was wrong (unlike with the evolution of event memories- where you can end up convinced that a car was yellow, say, when it was red- yet have no way of correcting the memory). It's doubtless the case that the many different types of memory a musician uses will enable corrections, should one type of memory start to waver- returning the memory of the composition to an accurate one. Fortunately, musicians are not necessarily prone to the same problems of memories evolving into inaccuracy- in the way memories of events do. I don't think you're using the raw information in an entirely appropriate context.

For this to work, we'd have to interrelate various different factors. In many cases, a memory that has wavered can reasonably be returned exactly to the initial memory, rather than evolve to a distant relative- aided by a different type of memory (eg. visual memory of the score can inform and fully correct a hole in the internal sound memory of the pitches). What you detail works for event recall, but is woefully simplistic for describing the nature of musical memory. For it to work like that a person would have to be a trained monkey that relies on muscle memory (with no intelligence whatsoever) and with no possibility of corrective input.

[hmpiano]

I was practicing today and I think I get your point fautly.  We spend a lot of time on pieces that are at the limits of speed - I don't think these could be played faster so are not suitable for this technique.  On the other hand slower stuff is re-enforced with above-the-tempo work.  I experienced that today, knew it, but had forgotten.

[nyiregyhazi]

I was practicing today and I think I get your point fautly.  We spend a lot of time on pieces that are at the limits of speed I don't think these could be played faster so are not suitable for this technique.  On the other hand slower stuff is re-enforced with above-the-tempo work.  I experienced that today, knew it, but had forgotten.

I agree that this can actually happen- as part of a well-balanced practise routine. When you play a slow passage faster, you have to think ahead more- which forces the mind to organise notes into bigger groups and get an improved understanding of the big picture- rather than take it one note at a time. What I dispute is the nonsense that fast practise directly trains neurons better. It's what you REALISE from doing occasional quicker bursts that makes it valuable- but only if you go on to develop what you have discovered from the faster rendition in slower and more sensitive work. It doesn't have the slightest thing to do with faster work training the neurons better. Faster bursts are good to expose holes in the thinking and the inability to move with efficiency. Slower and more conscious work is what cements the follow-up improvements.

Do something fast 5 times in a row and you are very unlikely to do anything but cause deterioration to your ability to execute it effectively. Go back and forth between faster and slower and you can learn all kinds of things about how to improve the movement.

[hmpiano]

When you play a slow passage faster, you have to think ahead more- which forces the mind to organise notes into bigger groups and get an improved understanding of the big picture- rather than take it one note at a time. What I dispute is the nonsense that fast practise directly trains neurons better.

Your  first sentence is surely describing an act that 'directly trains neurons better'?

[nyiregyhazi]

Your  first sentence is surely describing an act that 'directly trains neurons better'?

In only one indirect aspect- and in a way that an experienced pianist can do without having to play a passage faster than necessary (or even without playing a single note on the instrument). It's purely about the mental planning and organisation of the notes. It's not directly dependent on a fast execution. In fact, if you fail to do the mental procedure adequately, the fast execution will fail. Going fast is only a TEST of the quality of planning+ability to execute it in practise. It's not something that actively contributes to a reliable neural pathway for performing the actual movement. It just exposes whether you're doing a crap movement or not. It doesn't test whether the planning is memorised though. The planning is in the short-term memory.

In that respect, doing a fast execution five times over quickly is pointless. You only need to do it once- to check whether you have performed adequate mental organisation and acquired efficient enough movement for it to work. If it fails, you need to go slow and be more thoughtful and sensitive- to start learning a better movement. If it works, you've already passed the test- and by doing it quickly over and over again you just risk spoiling it again before the specific neural pathway has been cemented. If you want to cement a secure neural pathway for the MOVEMENT (not merely for the more conscious planning procedures that come before doing the movement) you need to be sure to do it with sensitivity and awareness. Speed is the enemy of that. Without quality, five fast executions will actively diminish the quality of the learning- by bringing more diversity and less consistency. You will have less ability to perform the optimal quality reliably.

[hmpiano]

It doesn't test whether the planning is memorised though. The planning is in the short-term memory.

If you can engineer what comes and goes in memory then you're very clever indeed!

[nyiregyhazi]

If you can engineer what comes and goes in memory then you're very clever indeed!

Yes, the emphasis being on "if"- considering that I neither stated nor remotely implied your nonsensical straw-man response. What on earth do you think I said that might suggest I can engineer what comes and goes in memory? Please expand upon this baffling statement.

Perhaps I should have replied by saying that if you think you can survive off a diet of glass then you have an unusual digestion system. It has about as much relevance as your response did.

[hmpiano]

What on earth do you think I said that might suggest I can engineer what comes and goes in memory?

It doesn't test whether the planning is memorised though. The planning is in the short-term memory.

[nyiregyhazi]

How is that supposed to lead to your bizarre follow up? It said nothing about it engineering memory. The fact that merely having something in your short-term memory does not necessarily send it into your long-term memory is the very point I was making. Accuracy of repetition is what builds long-term memory- not pushing yourself towards your limits of speed.

[hmpiano]

The fact that merely having something in your short-term memory does not necessarily send it into your long-term memory is the very point I was making.

Exactly.  Whether it goes to long term or not is not yours to engineer.  'Merely' having it in short term doesn't mean it won't make it into long term.

[nyiregyhazi]

Exactly.  Whether it goes to long term or not is not yours to engineer.  'Merely' having it in short term doesn't mean it won't make it into long term.

Neither does it mean that it will make into the long-term. All it means is that it's in the short-term memory and that's that- exactly as I said. I have no idea why you are rewording the very point I was making and trying to imply that I had been arguing the opposite to it.

Actually I do- you're just trolling. This is tiresome, and has no interest with regard to the topic. The point was- that it's not the fast execution that helps build memory, but the repetitions of the planning that can permit a fast execution to be performed (as well as slower and more thoughtful executions). The fast execution is merely a test of the conception and technique- not the best thing to repeat over and over in order to acquire memory. If you don't test your habits by going quicker sometimes, you can't be sure you're learning good one. Simply going fast each time does not improve learning though.

[hmpiano]

Neither does it mean that it will make into the long-term. All it means is that it's in the short-term memory and that's that- exactly as I said.

You can't say it's in short term memory and assume that's where it has stayed and will stay.   You can't say you'll never forget it!  The white bear example I gave is an example of straight-from-short-into-long term memory.

I get the trolling stuff now - it's your version of sour grapes isn't it?

[nyiregyhazi]

You can't say it's in short term memory and assume that's where it has stayed and will stay.   You can't say you'll never forget it!  The white bear example I gave is an example of straight-from-short-into-long term memory.

The white bear is frightening- which causes things to lodge in the long-term memory. A passage of music is not. That's a ridiculous comparison. I credit you with enough intelligence to realise that you made it purely for the sake of being argumentative (ie trolling)- rather than out of the naive belief that it's any way genuinely comparable on a rational level.

The level of trolling here is quite pathetic. In case of doubt, we're going to default to the assumption that any old thing that has been in short-term probably will go to long-term memory- without cause or reason? That's absurd. Have you never heard of Occam's razor? My assumption is not to make any assumption- but to realise that having something in the short term memory once does not magically commit it to long term memory. Whatever you wish to portray, I'm not viewing it from either side, but from pragmatism.

That's the thing about doing a short passage fast over and over- you do not necessarily commit the planning to long-term memory via repetition- because it can stay in the short-term memory during the physical repetitions (worse still if it's a long passage- in which case you don't have to time to do any adequately thoughtful planning at all). You do not necessarily get any more practise at repeating the thinking- that needs to be repeated in order to go into long term memory, for definite. You can easily do the thinking once and then just get practise at waving the fingers around based on what is in the short-term memory. However, if you repeat a passage slowly and mindfully, you are able to constantly notice and assess things during the movement- which means that you are getting more of the repetitions that commit both the conception and execution to long-term memory (not to mention more of the quality control that is necessary for reliability)

[hmpiano]

You do realize short term memory is famously only 7 elements + or - 2?

[nyiregyhazi]

You do realize short term memory is famously only 7 elements + or - 2?

If you'd care to declare what particular significance that figure is supposed to have on either the broad topic or any of my posts, that might make it a little more likely to come across as being of topical relevance- rather than as an unprompted attempt to impress by stating a randomly selected fact.

EDIT- okay I just looked that up. It's a complete myth- referring to average memory for a series of digits. I can commit substantially more than 7 notes to short term memory, without long-term memory of the same passage necessarily being generated. Just a few bars later, the whole thing has emptied out of my memory. Dubious approximations that are specific to digits have no bearing on this issue.

[faulty_damper]

No, it's not a myth.  7 + or - 2 has not, in the decades of memory study, been overturned.  Ever.  The only way a person can exceed this capacity is through mnemonics/chunking.  However, this does not mean a person's working memory has increased, just that information for well-practiced things are remembered in groups instead of individual parts.  It must be well-practiced pieces of information that are already linked that allows it to be chunked.

[nyiregyhazi]

No, it's not a myth.  7 + or - 2 has not, in the decades of memory study, been overturned.  Ever.  The only way a person can exceed this capacity is through mnemonics/chunking.  However, this does not mean a person's working memory has increased, just that information for well-practiced things are remembered in groups instead of individual parts.  It must be well-practiced pieces of information that are already linked that allows it to be chunked.

No- I looked it up. It's specific to memory of numbers- and even then people can regularly achieve 10 digits or more. Therefore it's not accurate. Also, many who believe in the chunk idea believe there can only be four chunks (although no limit is given on the level of information within each chunk). Basic examination aural tests contain considerably more than 7 notes to sing back- and nobody considers the ability to do so (and then rapidly forget the melodic line altogether) to be an indication of rare ability, never mind genius.

Not that this particular issue has significant bearing on practical issues of how learning is most effectively ingrained, but it's extremely normal to be able to assign considerably more than 7 notes to the short-term memory, before going on to forget it altogether. To get things into long-term memory, it typically requires a considerable amount of accurate repetition.

[nyiregyhazi]

Anyway, the whole thing about short-term memory being relatively brief (which I have never denied for a moment) only serves to strengthen how dubious it is to use rapid speeds for memorisation. If you do not regularly stop between small chunks, the brain has no time to plan the movement adequately- unless it was ALREADY memorised. If you're doing larger bits on the fly at a high speed, you're going to be resorting to all kinds of emergency movements that are less than optimal and you're also going to be limiting the scope to create new pathways (because, at speed, filling in the gaps between your general capability and the specific demands for the piece is going to be so erratic and inconsistent- especially if you don't care about creating a specific sound). Any fast work that is done in early stages must be done in small pieces (with plenty of prior planning and plenty of assessment of the quality of the results) and must be constantly compared to slower executions- in order to double-check that you're not forcing anything.

[hmpiano]

Anyway, the whole thing about short-term memory being relatively brief (which I have never denied for a moment) only serves to strengthen how dubious it is to use rapid speeds for memorisation.

No.  You're the one who claimed this is all about short term memory (and then had to look up what it was!)  As I've said, you have no control over which aspect of memory is being accessed.  Memory is far more complex that you seem to realize.   

[nyiregyhazi]

No.  You're the one who claimed this is all about short term memory (and then had to look up what it was!)  As I've said, you have no control over which aspect of memory is being accessed.  Memory is far more complex that you seem to realize.  

That it is complex is my point- are you making a sincere misunderstanding or just using the classic trolling technique of trying to make a false representation of my argument?

You most certainly do have control over what aspect of memory is is being accessed, however. As I made clear, I am speaking of practising small segments from an unfamiliar work quickly. So, if you're using long term memory of something you first read seconds ago, then you are doing something pretty remarkable. Before regurgitating information that you have read, you need to pay intelligent and logical consideration to the context of the information and to the circumstances you are trying to apply it to.

Anyway, the point is (getting back to the topic) that if you do it quickly ten times, as the poster described, you are doing less to cement memory- because a short passage can easily stay in the short term memory (and, as I said, if a new passage is too long for short-term memory then you're being truly reckless to launch into it at high speed ten times, while working out details on the fly). If you go slower and pay more attention to the fine details of what you are doing, you can cross-reference more to the score and notice a great deal more information about the movement and other issues. Long-term memory is built by the combination of consistent repetition and awareness. One important part of that is doing passages that are too long for the short-term memory, with enough time available to think. Quicker repetition of ultra-short chunks has many uses, but will almost inevitably become mindless and counterproductive if you do a chunk ten times in a row at speed.

[hmpiano]

You most certainly do have control over what aspect of memory is is being accessed, however. As I made clear, I am speaking of practising small segments from an unfamiliar work quickly. So, if you're using long term memory of something you first read seconds ago, then you are doing something pretty remarkable.

You really just don't get it do you?  Unless you're repeating a telephone number, there's no possible way of telling (though perhaps an fMRI may help) of where the memory is coming from or going to!  You simplify when you assume it's from short term.  Yesterday you didn't even know what that was!  Goodbye.  I've wasted enough time battling your willful ignorance.  Maybe you should go off and read some books on the subject?  I have, and so has faulty.

[nyiregyhazi]

You really just don't get it do you?  Unless you're repeating a telephone number, there's no possible way of telling (though perhaps an fMRI may help) of where the memory is coming from or going to!  You simplify when you assume it's from short term.  Yesterday you didn't even know what that was!  Goodbye.  I've wasted enough time battling your willful ignorance.  Maybe you should go off and read some books on the subject?  I have, and so has faulty.

I know what short-term memory is. I wasn't familiar with the widely disputed numbers that you quoted (or what point they were supposed to make- considering that short passages were precisely what I was speaking of).

You try to speak as if you're an authority on this, but it's common knowledge that reading a piece of NEW information once does not instantly commit it to long-term memory- except in rare cases. If you're simply going to be willfully contrarian towards everything I say (without also caring to maintain accuracy of logic), you're not going to succeed in making intelligent or coherent points. What is true in one context can be mere nonsense- if you do not consider the specific context you are trying to apply it to, with intelligent reasoning. It shouldn't take genius to deduce that new information is not going to be recalled from long term memory.

I'll repeat (in response to your ongoing trolling technique of misrepresenting my argument) I make no assumptions about how short-term goes to long term memory. The fact that no assumption can be made is the very point I made. Making no assumption does not mean assuming that long-term memory will probably be acquired (potentially based on nothing more than reading something once). It means realising that simply because a passage has been briefly committed to short term memory, you will not necessarily take it into long-term memory- and that there are many other factors involved.

[werq34ac]

I think this 7 +- 2 is bogus. How can I memorize my 5 pieces if I can only remember 9 notes? Oh sorry, I forgot that this only applies to short term memory (if it does apply at all). What Nyiregyhazi is saying is short term memory isn't what we're trying to achieve in the memorization of a piece. We want long term memory.

Now our control over our memory is this. To put something into your long term memory, the event either has to be incredibly memorable (like a life event) or it has to be continually recalled until it is in your long term memory.

As for this 7 +- 2, I'm pretty sure I can memorize more than 9 digits or notes at once.

[mike_lang]

I think this 7 +- 2 is bogus. How can I memorize my 5 pieces if I can only remember 9 notes? Oh sorry, I forgot that this only applies to short term memory (if it does apply at all). What Nyiregyhazi is saying is short term memory isn't what we're trying to achieve in the memorization of a piece. We want long term memory.

Now our control over our memory is this. To put something into your long term memory, the event either has to be incredibly memorable (like a life event) or it has to be continually recalled until it is in your long term memory.

As for this 7 +- 2, I'm pretty sure I can memorize more than 9 digits or notes at once.

Chunking, darling, chunking!

[faulty_damper]

No- I looked it up. It's specific to memory of numbers- and even then people can regularly achieve 10 digits or more. Therefore it's not accurate. Also, many who believe in the chunk idea believe there can only be four chunks (although no limit is given on the level of information within each chunk). Basic examination aural tests contain considerably more than 7 notes to sing back- and nobody considers the ability to do so (and then rapidly forget the melodic line altogether) to be an indication of rare ability, never mind genius.

I encourage you to check again and be particularly careful about your sources.  Working memory is only 7+or- 2 and not just for numbers.  It can be a list of items, letters, names of states, names of people, etc.

Chunking works the same way and follows 7 +or- 2.  Who the "many" you refer to must not be psychologists but rather people who make uninformed assumptions.

Also, melodic lines follow rules, grammar and syntax.  It has meaning.  It appears that most musicians can keep more than 7 notes in memory, which is true, but only for music that makes sense.  If it were a random string of notes, it would have no meaning, and would not be chunkable.  It, too, would follow 7 +or- 2.

[faulty_damper]

You try to speak as if you're an authority on this, but it's common knowledge that reading a piece of NEW information once does not instantly commit it to long-term memory- except in rare cases. If you're simply going to be willfully contrarian towards everything I say (without also caring to maintain accuracy of logic), you're not going to succeed in making intelligent or coherent points.

Umm...   You sound hypocritical.

I'll repeat (in response to your ongoing trolling technique of misrepresenting my argument)

Umm...  You sound hypocritical, again. 

I make no assumptions about how short-term goes to long term memory. The fact that no assumption can be made is the very point I made. Making no assumption does not mean assuming that long-term memory will probably be acquired (potentially based on nothing more than reading something once). It means realising that simply because a passage has been briefly committed to short term memory, you will not necessarily take it into long-term memory- and that there are many other factors involved.

ABOUT WORKING MEMORY

Something in working memory can easily be dropped.  The moment it is dropped, it's dropped for good... or it might not be...

Working memory (I prefer this term to short-term memory because it is a bit more accurate) works like this: when you have an item(s) in working memory, what happens is that specific neural patterns are repeated, juggled in the brain.  This juggling is vitally important because the moment the neural patterns stop repeating, the item(s) are dropped and you can't recall them.  Using MRI, we can pinpoint the exact moment something is dropped from working memory because the neural activity suddenly blinks out.

However, this does not necessarily mean it was lost for good.  You cannot recall a dropped item immediately after it was dropped but it may have made associations with other memory stores.  The context in which you placed the item(s) (such as the room, what you were doing before or after, objects in the area, etc.) can be used to recall something that was dropped.  For example, we've all had the experience of going to get something in another room but by the time we get there, we can't recall why we went to the other room.  We are left scratching our heads and frustratingly walk back to the room we were in.  But the moment we get back, we suddenly remember why we went to the other room in the first place.  Even though the item was dropped from our working memory, it was associated with the room you needed the item with so the moment you walk back to the room, you suddenly remember.  BTW, if this scenario happens to you again, simply walk back to the room you came from and you'll immediately remember what you went to get.

[faulty_damper]

So, you've now abandoned the point that you had been incessantly repeating and completely moved the goal posts?

I never abandoned the point.  I am only responding to new issues which happen to be circling all over the place.

None of what you stated conflicts with the point I made- which is that accuracy of repetition is the best way to build an effective neural pathway. However, your own words in the last post squarely conflict with your nonsensical theory about going fast to build better memory. When you go fast without prior preparation, the brain defaults to existing neural pathways- for general technical issues. However, it does not know all the specific requirements of the particular piece- which means that the new requirements are going to be very poorly executed unless you take your time figuring out the optimal movements. ...

Sigh... Again, the purpose is not about learning how to play the piano, which you seem to think is the point.  Do you not realize how each time you respond, you make some comment that this is about piano technique?  Even though I've stated numerous times that it isn't?  Playing is required, but it's not the point.

And no, I never disagreed with the fastest way to form an efficient neural memory by practicing the same movements.

You seem to just want to be right by making an alternative claim, I respond, then you re-interpret what I say in the context of the original topic, and then accuse me of not making sense.  Does this make sense to you?  By setting up straw-man argument tactics?

[faulty_damper]

As for this 7 +- 2, I'm pretty sure I can memorize more than 9 digits or notes at once.

I encourage you to try.*  Good luck attempting to do the impossible!

*Using random digits and random, nonsensical notes.