TromboneChat

timothy42b wrote: Thu Sep 25, 2025 7:01 am Good article, even though AI.

I suggest that mostly applies to prima facie sightreading, which is what beginners assume is sightreading, but is only a subset of what skilled readers do.

IMO, most good sightreading is retrieval of memorized patterns rather than prima facie visuomotor. (and the same is probably true for technique)

There are implications for how to improve it.

Sesquitone wrote: Thu Sep 25, 2025 7:56 am
And, yes, I am referring to what some people call "sight-playing". And, as opposed to "memorising", the same (Libet time) considerations apply to well-rehearsed playing-from-music.

timothy42b wrote: Fri Sep 26, 2025 7:19 am I didn't explain well. Or, maybe you simply disagree.
I recall a physiological psychology course back in the 70s where a studies said neurons in the pyramidal motor cortex fire about a second before any motor impulse, which seems similar to the Libet idea you posted. And that is why golf and bowling are so different from pickleball.

timothy42b wrote: Fri Sep 26, 2025 7:19 am Most sightreading relies on recognizing patterns that have been thoroughly learned and can be instantly retrieved. That is why it tends to be specific to the genre, and why practice sightreading lots of material is insufficient.

Sesquitone wrote: Fri Sep 26, 2025 12:36 pm
A novice trombone player, on seeing a quarter-note on the fourth line of the bass clef, will have to think "F" (preferably, "F3"); then think "first-position" and (the embouchure equivalent of "third harmonic")—not to mention noted articulation and dynamics—and then decide to play it in time (which happens half-a-second before she is aware of playing it). Additionally, depending on surrounding notes in the phrase, it may be "better" to play this in sixth position. That's a whole lot of "parameters" to think and decide about. Add in several sharps for a remote key and a lot of accidentals, . . . !

For experienced players, all of this is "automatic"—including the selection of "alternate" positions, especially in the upper register where there are many options. [Or in the otherwise "awkward" lower register if you are using a minor-third attachment.]

Then there is the question of "overcoming" Libet time when improvising (e.g. over chord changes in an original piece at a fast tempo). There's no time to think about appropriate arpeggios, chord-scales, and approach notes, and to then decide what to play—to fit the "arc" of the intended phrasing. Whatever you have in fact decided to play, you will have actually played half-second before you are aware of playing it.

Sesquitone wrote: Thu Sep 25, 2025 6:51 am I have mentioned Libet time (the half-second "awareness" delay) before. The Google AI agent makes a good summary of available literature of the affect on sight-reading:

This is a thought-provoking question. At first glance, Libet’s experiments—and the broader issue of “readiness potentials” (RPs) and the timing of conscious intention—don’t obviously map onto the very rapid, practiced, often overlearned acts involved in musical performance or sight-reading. But it’s worth teasing apart what “impact” might plausibly mean, and where the parallels (or limits) lie. Here’s a detailed take:

⸻

What “Libet time” means (and its caveats)

To recap, Libet’s classic finding was that a measurable “readiness potential” in EEG (a slow buildup of neural activity) precedes the reported moment when a subject becomes consciously aware of their intention (the “W-time”) by a few hundred milliseconds.  This has prompted philosophical debates about free will, conscious vs. unconscious initiation of action, and the extent to which conscious intention “causes” movement.

However, there are several caveats and challenges to generalizing from Libet’s paradigm:
   •   Libet’s experiments typically involve simple, spontaneous, self-paced movements (e.g. flexing a finger), in a deliberately laboratory-reduced context.
   •   There is ongoing debate about how to interpret readiness potentials (e.g. whether they reflect genuine motor planning, general background neural fluctuation, accumulation of spontaneous evidence, or preparation/anticipation). 
   •   Some newer models (e.g. Schurger et al.) suggest that the buildup of neural activity pre-movement might be an “accumulator” of spontaneous fluctuations, not a deterministic causal march to action. 
   •   Libet himself conceded that while the initiation might be sub-threshold, conscious veto (“I decide not to go ahead”) might still play a role. 

Given all that, one must be cautious in extrapolating Libet’s findings to complex, high-speed, expert performance.

⸻

What is required in sight-reading / musical performance

To see whether Libet‐style effects could matter for music, let’s list a few relevant features of musical performance (especially sight-reading):
1. Fast, fine-grained motor control: executing sequences of finger/hand movements with precision and timing.
2. Feedforward and anticipation: musicians often anticipate upcoming notes and plan ahead, rather than purely reacting.
3. Sensory feedback, error correction, adaptation: real-time monitoring and adjustments (tempo, articulation, dynamics).
4. Cognitive load / reading / pattern recognition: the act of decoding the notation, interpreting, planning fingerings, etc.
5. Automaticity and chunking: over practice, many motor sequences become automatized or “precompiled.”

Because of these attributes, a lot of the “action” in musical performance probably lies in well-practiced, prediction-based systems and fast feedforward loops, not purely conscious moment-to-moment decisions.

⸻

Possible ways Libet-type considerations could (or be argued to) influence musical performance

Given the disjunction between the lab paradigm and musical performance, one can still explore possible connections or (more weakly) constraints. Here are some speculations / frameworks:

Hypothetical link How it might manifest in music Likelihood / caveats
Preconscious preparation of motor sequences Before one “decides” to play a passage, neural circuits may already be primed or biased toward certain fingerings or motor trajectories. This is plausible: many motor plans may be pre-activated, particularly in well-learned passages. But this is not exactly what Libet measured.
Temporal constraints and reaction limits Because neural preparation has latency, extremely rapid reading and execution leave little margin for conscious deliberation; decisions must be fast or precomposed. Very plausible: in fast sight-reading, there isn’t time for “wait for conscious intention” per note; the musician must rely on anticipatory planning and motor readiness.
Veto / inhibition / error correction Even if an initial motor plan is underway unconsciously, the performer may consciously suppress or alter it (a sort of “veto”) if they detect an error or unwanted onset. This is analogous to Libet’s notion of a veto window. In performance, real-time control and inhibition are critical (e.g. stopping a finger from pressing a wrong key).
Cognitive bottleneck & timing overlap The interplay of reading ahead, motor planning, and sensory feedback may crowd out a “conscious initiation moment” for each individual note — the system may operate more as a continuous pipeline than discrete conscious decisions. This seems quite likely. The brain may not engage fresh conscious intention for every micro-action in performance.
Delay in conscious awareness If conscious awareness of an intention lags behind neural preparation, then what we feel as “I decided to play that note” might already be preceded by preparatory neural activity. Over many notes, this lag becomes negligible relative to continuous performance. The delay (hundreds of ms) is large relative to some musical events, but in continuous performance that lag may blur or become functionally negligible.

So, while Libet’s classic paradigm doesn’t directly map, the general idea that motor preparation can precede conscious awareness is not inconsistent with how skilled performance likely works (where much of the fine timing is delegated to sub-conscious systems).

⸻

Counterpoints and reasons the effect might be negligible or irrelevant
   •   Expert automaticity: Many aspects of musical performance, especially in trained musicians, become automatized; the role of conscious intention per micro-movement is reduced.
   •   Parallel, pipelined control: Musical performance is not a simple “decide then move” sequence—we see parallel processing, overlapping planning, error correction, sensory feedback loops, etc.
   •   Speed vs. introspection: The rapidity of performance likely exceeds the timescales at which conscious intention can reliably intervene.
   •   Lack of empirical evidence: To my knowledge, there is little direct empirical work linking readiness potentials (or Libet-style measurements) with sight-reading or musical performance tasks.

⸻

What empirical evidence or experiments could test a connection

If one wanted to probe whether a “Libet effect” influences musical performance, here are some possible designs:
   •   EEG / MEG during sight-reading: try to measure readiness potentials or motor preparation signals aligned to note onsets, and see if there are neural precursors before the conscious decoding or decision.
   •   Manipulate decision time: compare performance in conditions where a musician has more vs. less time to plan (e.g. slower vs. faster tempo, or with a “go cue” vs. free reading) and look for signs of pre-activation.
   •   Interrupt / veto conditions: require the musician occasionally to inhibit planned notes (e.g. a “skip this note” go signal) and see whether the inhibitory signal can override a motor plan once it has begun.
   •   Compare novice vs. expert: see whether more experienced performers show earlier motor preparation (or tighter coupling of prediction) than novices.

⸻

Summary & verdict
   •   In short: Libet’s classic results don’t directly imply anything strong about sight-reading or musical performance, but the general notion that neural preparation can precede conscious awareness is not in conflict with what we suspect about skilled performance.
   •   In highly practiced, fast, anticipatory tasks like sight-reading, the margin for conscious initiation per note is small or perhaps non-existent; many movements are likely primed in advance or handled by lower-level control loops.
   •   Thus, one might more fruitfully ask: How much conscious control does a performer retain over micro-actions once they are underway? In that sense, a “veto,” inhibition, or adjustment is more plausible than a fresh conscious decision each time.

If you like, I can look up whether any neuroscience or music cognition research has already attempted to measure readiness potentials in musicians during sight-reading or performance, to see whether there is direct evidence. Do you want me to try that?