<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">

<article article-type="research-article" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML">
 <front>
    <journal-meta>
	<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Jemr</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>Journal of Eye Movement Research</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn pub-type="epub">1995-8692</issn>
	  <publisher>								
	  <publisher-name>Bern Open Publishing</publisher-name>
	  <publisher-loc>Bern, Switzerland</publisher-loc>
	</publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
	<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.16910/jemr.11.2.3</article-id> 
	  <article-categories>								
				<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
					<subject>Research Article</subject>
				</subj-group>
		</article-categories>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Early Attraction in Temporally Controlled
Sight Reading of Music</article-title>
      </title-group>
	   <contrib-group> 
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Huovinen</surname>
						<given-names>Erkki</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1 aff2 aff4">1, 2, 4</xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Ylitalo</surname>
						<given-names>Anna-Kaisa</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
				</contrib>	
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Puurtinen</surname>
						<given-names>Marjaana</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
				</contrib>				
        <aff id="aff1">
		<institution>Royal College of Music in Stockholm,</institution>,   <country>Sweden</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
		<institution>University of Jyväskylä</institution>,   <country>Finland</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3">
		<institution>University of Turku</institution>,   <country>Finland</country>
        </aff>	
        <aff id="aff4">
		[www.kmh.se, www.jyu.fi]
        </aff>			
		</contrib-group>   

		
	  <pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic"> 
		<day>10</day>  
		<month>4</month>
        <year>2018</year>
      </pub-date>
	  <pub-date date-type="collection" publication-format="electronic"> 
	  <year>2018</year>
	</pub-date>
      <volume>11</volume>
      <issue>2</issue>
	 <elocation-id>10.16910/jemr.11.2.3</elocation-id> 
	<permissions> 
	<copyright-year>2017</copyright-year>
	<copyright-holder>Huovinen, E., Ylitalo, A.-K., &#x26; Puurtinen, M.</copyright-holder>
	<license license-type="open-access">
  <license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, 
  (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
    https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link>), which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.</license-p>
</license>
	</permissions>
      <abstract>
        <p>A music reader has to “look ahead” from the notes currently being played—this has usually
been called the Eye-Hand Span. Given the restrictions on processing time due to tempo and
meter, the Early Attraction Hypothesis suggests that sight readers are likely to locally increase
the span of looking ahead in the face of complex upcoming symbols (or symbol relationships).
We argue that such stimulus-driven effects on looking ahead are best studied
using a measure of Eye-Time Span (ETS) which redefines looking ahead as the metrical
distance between the position of a fixation in the score and another position that corresponds
to the point of metrical time at fixation onset. In two experiments of temporally controlled
sight reading, musicians read simple stepwise melodies that were interspersed with larger
intervallic skips, supposed to create points of higher melodic complexity (and visual salience)
at the notes following the skips. The results support both Early Attraction (lengthening
of looking ahead) and Distant Attraction (lengthening of incoming saccades) in the face of
relative melodic complexity. Notably, such effects also occurred on the notes preceding the
nominally complex ones. The results suggest that saccadic control in music reading depends
on temporal restrictions as well as on local variations in stimulus complexity.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Eye tracking</kwd>
        <kwd>Eye-hand span</kwd>
        <kwd>Eye-time span</kwd>
        <kwd>Meter</kwd>
        <kwd>Music reading</kwd>
        <kwd>Parafoveal processing</kwd>
        <kwd>Perceptual span</kwd>
        <kwd>Psychology of Music</kwd>
        <kwd>Saccadic control</kwd>
        <kwd>Tempo</kwd>		
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>	
  <body>

    <sec id="S1">
      <title>Introduction</title>

    <p>Reading musical notation shares some commonalities with reading
    linguistic texts, including a linear progression from left to right and
    the possibility of involving auditory imagery even in silent reading.
    There are nevertheless at least two important differences between these
    two reading domains that make it impossible to learn about the processes
    of music reading directly from studies of language reading. First, music
    does not rely on a lexicon and referential semantics in the sense that
    language does, and hence it does not have fixed “words” in the linguistic
    sense. However, morphological units may arise through grouping mechanisms
    that in the written domain can be traced down to pitch structure and
    temporal structure (e.g., groupings of notes separated by larger
    differences in pitch or time), articulation and phrasing markings (e.g.,
    slurs, curved lines indicating that a group of notes is to be articulated
    together), and orthographic conventions and decisions (e.g., beaming
    several eighth notes together with a thick vertical line connecting the
    note stems: <graphic id="graph12" xlink:href="jemr-11-02-c-figure-12.png"/>). It is common
    understanding that musical notation can be easy or difficult to read due
    to compositional decisions made on all of these levels. Therefore, reading
    musical notation often does resemble reading a foreign language text in
    the sense that some of its smallest structural units can be more difficult
    than others to sight read (i.e., to read at first sight) even for
    competent musicians, and that such details may have to be deciphered and
    practiced before they can be fluently “read out loud.” </p>

    <p>The second crucial difference between reading music and reading text is
    due to the fact that musical notation is most often (but not exclusively)
    understood as a guide to instrumental performance, and such performances
    are typically (but not exclusively) expected to follow rather strict
    temporal constraints. In musical traditions relying on the Western
    notation system, musicians typically synchronize their performances by
    keeping to a common tempo and meter—a cyclically recurring, hierarchical
    scheme of “strong” and “weak” beats that is regulated in the notation by a
    time signature (e.g., 4/4, meaning four quarter notes within a bar: <graphic id="graph13" xlink:href="jemr-11-02-c-figure-13.png"/>). 
	A solo performer, reading music from the score, must likewise more or
    less hold on to such metrical constraints and is not free to stop and
    ponder a more interesting or difficult passage in the notation in the way
    that a language reader most often can. Even outside of performance
    contexts, the reader of musical notation is arguably required to
    understand the “meaning” of the written music in terms of its temporal and
    metrical constraints.</p>

    <p>The present study sets out to explain how music readers handle local
    musical complexities in sight reading, while conforming to the constraints
    of the musical meter in a set tempo. To the extent that the sight reader
    wishes to maintain a constant flow of music and thus only has a limited
    amount of time available for reading each metrical unit (such as a bar,
    separated by two vertical bar lines), how will she regulate her eye
    movements to cope with more challenging musical details that may crop up
    in the notation? From previous studies, we know that comparatively
    difficult elements in the notation—such as incongruent endings (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b1">1</xref>) or
    notes appearing after larger intervallic skips in an otherwise stepwise
    melodic context (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">2</xref>)—may require relatively more total fixation time than
    other elements to be accurately processed in a sight-reading performance
    (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b3">3</xref>). Conceivably, and irrespective of fixation time allocated to them,
    such details might often require more time for planning the motor
    sequence—that is, more time between the first fixation onset to the
    target, and the moment when a corresponding sound has to be produced on a
    musical instrument. In a temporally regulated context, such extra time has
    to be compensated for by decreasing the time spent on other elements (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b4 b5">4, 5</xref>). 
	If the music progresses at a more or less uniform tempo, any
    upcoming difficulties have to be spotted well in advance so that the
    performer has enough time—despite the locally heavier processing load—to
    decipher the difficult symbols and prepare a motor sequence for executing
    the notes on an instrument. Such spotting in advance, however, would
    require being alert to what musical information enters the parafoveal
    area, outside of the currently fixated note symbols.</p>
	
    <sec id="S1a">
      <title>Early Attraction and Distant Attraction in Music reading</title>

    <p>Despite the differences between the domains of reading music and
    reading text, it is instructive to approach the issue by briefly reviewing
    some of the findings concerning parafoveal processing in text reading. The
    influences of words on eye movements in reading are typically broken down
    to questions of where to move the eyes and when to move them (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b6 b7">6, 7</xref>).
    The general understanding is that information obtained foveally—from the
    fixated word—largely determines when to move the eyes, whereas parafoveal
    information—understood in this context as information concerning the next,
    non-fixated word(s)—is responsible for where to move them. Considering the
    kinds of properties relevant to foveal and parafoveal processing, it is
    also possible to say that cognitive/linguistic properties of a word, such
    as frequency and predictability, mostly determine the duration of a
    fixation on the word before moving on, while visual properties, such as
    word length and orthography, have the largest effect on landing position
    of the next fixation. (For reviews, see (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b8 b6">8, 6</xref>).) In particular, Hyönä (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b9">9</xref>)
    found that irregular strings of letters in the beginning of a word tend to
    attract, or “pull” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b10">10</xref>), the first fixation closer to the beginning of the
    word, and even to the space prior to the word (in comparison to the
    so-called preferred viewing location just left of the center of the word).
    Likewise, White and Liversedge (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b11 b12 b13">11, 12, 13</xref>) demonstrated that for
    misspelled words, the landing positions for incoming saccades tend to be
    nearer the beginning of the word. There is also some evidence that
    low-frequency words may attract eye movement (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b14">14</xref>). However, to set the
    stage for our musical study, we need not concern ourselves with the
    distinction between orthographic and lexical information. As should be
    clear from above, any such distinctions would have to be made on
    independent grounds in the case of music. What we do get from these
    results is the following robust, overall picture: Upcoming symbols that
    are in some sense “irregular” or less typical—and hence potentially more
    difficult—may guide saccadic planning even before they are fixated.</p>

    <p>Let us now return to our musical problem situation. In simple
    sight-reading tasks, such as ones incorporating only quarter-notes (<graphic id="graph14" xlink:href="jemr-11-02-c-figure-14.png"/>)
    on a diatonic scale (e.g., the collection of notes on the white keys of
    the piano), it is typical that the sight reader has time to fixate most of
    the successive notes (e.g., (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">15</xref>)); thus, making conclusions about “where in
    the word” the fixations land is not enough to diagnose the process. As
    already indicated above, it would instead be reasonable to expect that any
    salient difficulties spotted in the parafovea would affect the “when”
    question—the timing of the saccade launched ahead. In other words, it
    could be expected that salient difficulties in a musical score attract
    first fixations relatively early on in the course of the musical
    performance, helping the reader allocate enough of the limited processing
    time to the difficulties. This could be called the Early Attraction
    Hypothesis (cf. the merely spatial attraction hypothesis that could be
    used to account for the above results in language reading; see 9). If we
    imagine the passing of the metrical time of music as a cursor gradually
    sliding across the score, touching the note symbols as they are performed,
    the reader’s fixations would always tend to be a bit ahead of the cursor.
    Figure 1 gives a simplified example of the expected effect by depicting
    four successive moments
    <italic>t</italic><sub><italic>1</italic></sub><italic>–t</italic><sub><italic>4</italic></sub> in an imagined
    sight-reading performance. Until <italic>t</italic><sub><italic>3</italic></sub>, the reader’s
    eyes are more or less similarly ahead of the cursor. In relation to such a
    process, Early Attraction would postulate a processing difficulty to be
    reflected by a fixation landing further to the right of the sliding
    cursor, thus increasing the time for identifying the symbol in question
    and for planning a suitable motor action. In our hypothetical example, the
    sudden leap of the melody to a higher note, together with the accidental
    sign prefixed to it (further modifying the pitch by a semitone),
    constitutes a relative “difficulty” that attracts the reader’s eyes at
    <italic>t</italic><sub><italic>4</italic></sub>, in this case even causing the reader to skip
    fixating the preceding note.</p>

<fig id="fig01" fig-type="figure" position="float">
					<label>Fig 1.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>A schematic example of our Early Attraction hypothesis in sight
    reading: The gray cursor marks the metrical time sliding continuously
    across the score; The circle marks the reader’s concurrent fixation. At
    moment <italic>t</italic><sub><italic>4</italic></sub>, a difficulty attracts the reader’s
    eyes, stretching the span between the fixation and the cursor.</p>
					</caption>
					<graphic id="graph01" xlink:href="jemr-11-02-c-figure-01.png"/>
				</fig>


    <p>Early Attraction, as here conceived, is akin to the so-called
    (inverted) parafoveal-on-foveal effects observed in text reading, but is
    not tantamount to any one of them, as standardly defined.
    Parafoveal-on-foveal effects often involve the increase of foveal fixation
    durations in the face of parafoveal processing difficulties (e.g., due to
    orthography: (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b16 b17 b18">16, 17, 18</xref>)), but also inverted effects—shorter focal
    fixations due to parafoveal difficulties—have been shown in some
    experiments (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b14 b19 b21">14, 19, 21</xref>). In the latter case, researchers might speak of
    an “early saccade toward the location of the parafoveal difficulty” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b20">20</xref>),
    p. 654, “earliness” being understood with reference to the previous
    fixation onset. Another kind of inverted parafoveal-on-foveal effect is
    skipping the target word when the parafoveal word presents some
    irregularities—as if the irregularity would operate as a “magnet”
    attracting the eyes (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b14">14</xref>). Our Early Attraction Hypothesis would be
    compatible with both of these inverted effects, but it says nothing
    directly about shortened fixation durations or skipping. Instead, it is a
    higher-level assumption about when visual information would need to be
    gathered in relation to the passing of metrical time (see below). As such,
    it corresponds to the “magnet account” that Hyönä and Bertram (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b14">14</xref>) use to
    cover both of the inverted effects mentioned above. But whereas Hyönä and
    Bertram acknowledge that their account “makes a counterintuitive
    prediction in claiming that parafoveal processing difficulty should lead
    to shorter processing times for the foveal word” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b14">14</xref>), p. 124, we submit
    that, in temporally regulated music-reading contexts, such a phenomenon
    would be far from counterintuitive. In cases such as the one depicted in
    our imaginary example above, an early glance to a “difficult” target could
    be achieved by terminating a prior fixation earlier than otherwise, but it
    might also be a matter of skipping some fixation(s) that might have
    otherwise occurred. At the present state of research, the difference seems
    immaterial. The variability in music readers’ eye-movement processes and
    the abundance of big and small irregularities in musical scores do not
    suggest analyzing such “earliness” in relation to some “regular” pattern
    of fixation locations or fixation times. The effect, if one exists, is
    better identified on the level of the music reader’s management of time
    resources in general—as being early when needed.</p>

    <p>Given that musical notes not only take time to be performed but also
    occupy graphical space in the visual score, Early Attraction would
    generally imply reacting to such difficulties over a larger spatial span
    as well. If so, we might additionally hypothesize that the saccades
    landing on difficult symbols might be longer than average. This is a
    separate assumption that will be called the Distant Attraction Hypothesis.
    Supposing Early Attraction to be attested, Distant Attraction would
    represent the simplest way it could take place: The reader would react to
    an upcoming difficult target by directing a single, longer saccade toward
    it well before reaching that point in the music. This would indeed be the
    case in the schematic example of Fig. 1, supposing that the four
    successive moments depict successive fixations: The horizontal distance
    between fixations lengthens between moments <italic>t</italic><sub><italic>3</italic></sub>
    and <italic>t</italic><sub><italic>4</italic></sub>. In text reading, an analogous effect does
    not seem to occur, however: Hyönä (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b9">9</xref>) reported that the distance to the
    launch site (the location of the previous fixation) is not influenced by
    the type of target word for a saccade. In fact, studies in reading Chinese
    suggest quite the opposite to what we would be expecting: longer saccades
    being associated with less complex characters (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b22">22</xref>) and with
    higher-frequency characters and words (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b22 b23">22, 23</xref>). By comparison to music
    reading, the absence of Distant Attraction might not here be utterly
    surprising: The language reader is not obliged to have finished the whole
    sentence or the whole paragraph in a given total time, and hence there is
    no crucial benefit for launching longer saccades to upcoming difficulties
    early on in the process. Here, any additional processing time needed for a
    difficult target can remain a local temporal extension, rather than
    requiring a balancing act somewhere else in the process. In the case of
    temporally regulated musical sight reading, however, such balancing acts
    become a necessity as soon as one of the symbols requires extra processing
    time. The Early Attraction Hypothesis suggests that this may happen as a
    prior adjustment to parafoveally presented information, and the Distant
    Attraction Hypothesis further suggests that the mechanism for being early
    would be in terms of single, longer jumps ahead.</p>

    <p>The joint hypotheses concerning Early and Distant Attraction mean that
    saccadic programming may be, in part, locally influenced by musical detail
    in the notated score—particularly by the salient and/or difficult elements
    in it. We will discuss such elements using the concept of complexity.
    Generally, we know that the overall level of complexity in the
    sight-reading stimulus may affect which skills of the reader are important
    for successful performance (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b24">24</xref>), but complexity may also vary within the
    stimulus, as already implied. Instead of giving a formal definition, we
    will treat local complexity as a heuristic notion that is always relative
    to the notated musical surroundings. Embedded amidst an otherwise simple
    diatonic melodic texture, a sudden note with an accidental sign (i.e.,
    sharp [#] or flat [b], raising or lowering the note by a semitone) would
    tend to mark a deviation from the expected. Here, complexity could be seen
    as intrinsic to the compound symbol itself, but notice that local musical
    complexities may also be relational, not reducible to the individual
    elements. Consider again the melodic example of Fig. 1. For the first six
    notes, it only uses the white keys of the piano, proceeding stepwise on
    the diatonic scale (as indicated by note heads in adjacent positions on
    the lines and in the spaces of the musical staff). Such melodic movement
    might be decoded and executed simply as a series of “up” and “down”
    commands, but any larger intervallic skip to a higher or lower note might
    require identifying the note after the skip by its name (or by its
    position on the keyboard) in order for it to be correctly performed (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">2</xref>). 
	In this cognitive sense, the “difficult” note of Fig. 1 could indeed
    represent greater relational complexity than its immediate surroundings,
    even if the accidental sign was removed from it.</p>

    <p>We suggest that even simple musical notation thus involves variations
    in structural complexity—and hence, constantly shifting levels of
    processing load—that may affect skilled musicians’ sight-reading
    performance. Notice, too, that points of musico-syntactical complexity can
    often be expected to correspond to points of visual saliency in a musical
    score. According to music-theoretical lore, an intervallic skip such as
    that in Fig. 1 is likely to be heard as a melodic grouping boundary in the
    auditory domain (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b25">25</xref>), p. 46, but it also brings about a visual
    grouping boundary in the vertical dimension of the score: The last two
    notes of the example seem to form a visual group of their own, beginning
    on a note that is thus salient in its surroundings. From research on
    picture perception we know that highly salient objects attract fixations
    earlier than less conspicuous ones (when the task requires encoding the
    whole picture; (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b26 b27">26, 27</xref>)); in music reading, we may well suppose a similar
    mechanism to function as an aid to saccadic programming, which would
    facilitate allocating the limited processing time to where it is most
    sorely needed.</p>
    </sec>
	
    <sec id="S1b">
      <title>The Eye-Hand Span and the Eye-Time Span</title>

    <p>In previous research on eye movements in music reading, the central
    concept used in discussions of temporal control has been the Eye-Hand
    Span. In proposing the Early and Distant Attraction Hypotheses, we are, in
    effect, predicting local increases of the Eye-Hand Span due to
    musico-visually complex features of the notated musical stimulus. That is,
    we suggest that local, upcoming complexities in the score might lead the
    sight-reader to “look farther ahead” than usual from the notes currently
    being played. In studies of the Eye-Hand Span, such a possibility has not
    been investigated before. To see why, we need to take a closer look at how
    the span has been defined. In studies on music reading, the Eye-Hand Span
    has generally been understood as the “distance between production and
    perception” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b28">28</xref>), p. 161. Operationalizations for this concept have
    varied. It has been defined in terms of the number of notes (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b29 b30 b31">29, 30, 31</xref>)
    or beats (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b4 b32 b33">4, 32, 33</xref>), or with regard to spatial distance (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b34">34</xref>) or absolute
    time (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b29 b30 b33">29, 30, 33</xref>). Studies suggest that more experienced music readers
    apply larger Eye-Hand Spans than less experienced ones, when the span is
    calculated in terms of spatial distance (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b32 b34">32, 34</xref>), beats (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b4">4</xref>), or the number
    of notes (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b31">31</xref>). In terms of absolute time, Furneaux and Land (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b29">29</xref>) reported
    an average Eye-Hand Span to lie around 1 s for both amateur and
    professional musicians, and it is worth noting that even experienced sight
    readers may not, in fact, use spans as large as sometimes believed (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b32">32</xref>). Most studies on the Eye-Hand Span have not externally controlled the
    performance tempo (exceptions being (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b4 b29 b33">4, 29, 33</xref>)), and thus surprisingly
    little is still known about the effects of regulated tempo on looking
    ahead in music reading.</p>

    <p>When the span is measured “from the currently played note,” we are
    basically attaching the “back end” of the span to a point of measurement
    in a motor performance, and finding out how far to the right the reader’s
    gaze extends at that point in time. This could be called the Forward
    Projective Approach of defining the span (see Fig. 2a below). Early
    pioneering studies using photographic methods applied this basic approach,
    both for the Eye-Voice Span in oral reading (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b35">35</xref>) and
    for the Eye-Hand Span in typewriting (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b36">36</xref>) and music reading (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b37">37</xref>).
    For each successive second in music reading, Weaver
    (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b37">37</xref>) measured how many notes or chords the eyes were ahead of the
    hands. Later, Sloboda (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b38 b39">38, 39</xref>) used a variant of
    the Forward Projective Approach in an off-line setting, defining the
    Eye-Hand Span as the number of notes correctly played following a note on
    which the score was made invisible. With the advent of modern eye-tracking
    technology, the basic procedure has been to choose a point of measurement
    in the performance, find the fixation occurring concurrently with
    that point, and measure the distance between them in whatever units found
    suitable. An example would be Truitt and colleagues’ (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b32">32</xref>), p. 153,
    definition of the Eye-Hand Span as “the distance [in
    pixels] that the eyes were ahead of the executed note at the time the note
    was executed” (similarly in millimeters: (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b34">34</xref>); in number of notes: (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b29 b30 b31">29, 30, 31</xref>); in number of beats: (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b33">33</xref>)).</p>

    <p>For addressing the Early Attraction Hypothesis, the
    Forward Projective Approach is inappropriate, since it is time-locked to
    action rather than perception (see Fig. 2a). That is,
    the measured spans are not defined for potential sites of visual interest
    lying ahead, but rather for motor actions corresponding to given
    notes of the score that are already being executed when the measurement is
    made. Hence the measured spans may, in fact,
    reflect the perception of other, upcoming notes, rather than perception of
    notes at the points of measurement. (The same is true in a variant
    substituting metrical beat onsets as points of measurement; see (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b4">4</xref>).)
    Another problem with the Forward Projective Approach is its imprecision:
    Whatever units of measurement the results are reported in, the initial
    pairing of the “hand” and the “eye” is here a pairing of two event onsets
    or dimensionless points in time that have not occurred exactly
    simultaneously. The fixation “in effect” during a key press might have had
    its onset some hundreds of milliseconds before the key press. Again, this
    just reflects that the measures discussed above are not meant to be exact
    about when, during the process, the first fixation to a given location
    appeared.</p>

    <p>These problems can be addressed by what could be called
    the Single-Item Lag Approach to span measurement. Instead of pairing a
    point of time in the performance with a fixation that occurs approximately
    at the same time, here one pairs a fixation on a score element with the
    later performance of the very same element (this type of a definition for
    the Eye-Hand Span is given as the “formal” one by Holmqvist and colleagues
    [(<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b40">40</xref>), p. 445–447]). That is, one basically chooses a note from the score
    and measures the temporal distance between a fixation to this note and the
    corresponding note onset in the performance (see Fig. 2b). Apart from
    providing measures that can be usefully defined for potential locations of
    visual interest, this strategy also gets rid of the problem of imprecision
    mentioned above. With such an approach, Furneaux and
    Land (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b29">29</xref>) reported that a “time index,” indicating the time interval
    between fixating a note and playing it, was reduced from ca. 1.3 s in a
    “slow” tempo to ca. 0.7 s in a “fast” one (while skill level, in
    particular, did not affect the time index). Rosemann and colleagues (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b33">33</xref>),
    in reporting similar tempo effects for the “eye-hand span in latency,”
    observed that while the measurement decreased for a faster tempo and
    increased for a slower one, the change was not quite proportional to the
    change in tempo. Unfortunately, the exact tempi were not reported in
    either of these studies, and the data sets only consisted of eight and
    nine pianists’ performances, respectively.
    Wurtz and colleagues (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b30">30</xref>) also applied the Single-Item Lag
    Approach in a study with seven violinists, but without controlling the
    tempo.</p>

<fig id="fig02" fig-type="figure" position="float">
					<label>Fig 2.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>Three approaches to span measurement: (a) The Forward
    Projective Approach and (b) the Single-Item Lag Approach, resulting in two
    variants of the Eye-Hand Span; (c) The Backward Projective Approach,
    resulting in the Eye-Time Span.</p>
					</caption>
					<graphic id="graph02" xlink:href="jemr-11-02-c-figure-02.png"/>
				</fig>


    <p>Among the studies using the Single-Item Lag
    Approach, only Rosemann and colleagues (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b33">33</xref>) made some effort to
    assess local, stimulus-driven changes in the Eye-Hand Span. Having
    intuitively rated each bar of their Bach keyboard score as “easy” or
    “difficult,” they used this sort of measurement and found no difference in
    the size of the spans measured for the two types of bars. Switching to a
    Forward Projective Approach, they did find that “difficult” bars received
    significantly smaller spans than “easy” ones. However, as explained above,
    the latter kind of results concern spans projected ahead from musical
    notes that are already being performed. Hence the results should not be
    taken to mean that more difficult items were initially glanced from a
    smaller distance than easier ones, but that performing difficult sections
    prevented the readers from looking as far ahead as they did while
    performing easier sections.</p>

    <p>For the purpose of studying such stimulus effects as required by
    the Early Attraction Hypothesis, the Single-Item Lag
    Approach, too, has slight drawbacks. Most importantly, it is not
    only affected by the quickness of the reader’s eye-movement reactions to
    upcoming symbols, but also by her interpretive choices and possible
    failures in the performance domain. In recognizing a structurally weighty
    musical event in the score, the performer might come to emphasize it, say,
    by a slight deceleration before a metrically accented note (see, e.g.,
    (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b41">41</xref>)). On the Single-Item Lag Approach, the resulting retarded note onset
    would yield a local increase in the Eye-Hand Span just because of the
    interpretive choice of the performer, even if the visual reaction to the
    note would not have been launched earlier on in the process than usual.
    Similar problems would be encountered if the performer commits errors in
    timing the note onsets. Overall, the measurement of the eye-movement
    response is here made contingent upon the success and accuracy of the
    motor response, disregarding the possibility that visual processing might
    also be successful when motor performance fails. A related problem
    afflicting any “hand”-based approach is that such approaches will not
    allow measuring spans for rests (symbols for silence), which might also be
    potential symbols of early interest (as they often indicate phrase
    boundaries). Finally, in the musical domain, some professionals might
    question the pedagogical applicability of measurements that do not allow
    conceptualizing “being ahead” in a snapshot-like manner, or in relation to
    the metrical time domain of the music, but instead require expressions
    like “you should glance at that note 1.5 s before you play it.”</p>

    <p>For these reasons, we introduce a third approach to span calculation
    that can be called the Backward Projective Approach. In a nutshell, the
    idea is to start from a fixation and find the point at which the metrical
    time of music was running at fixation onset. The basic idea is illustrated
    in Fig. 2c. In working backwards from the landing sites of saccades, we
    measure the ability of individual symbols to catch the music reader’s eye,
    asking questions such as, “from how far back in the
    music will the musician first glance at this symbol?” Because we
    are not dealing with the “hand” of the performer, we prefer to call our
    measure the Eye-Time Span (henceforth, ETS). Note that with a mechanical
    performance, perfectly synchronized to the metronome (and with no rests as
    points of measurement), ETS would equal the Eye-Hand Span calculated on
    the Single-Item Lag Approach. However, in order to be sure that we are
    actually measuring visual reactions to the score, we prefer to use the
    ETS.</p>

    <p>In research on oral reading, Laubrock and Kliegl (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b42">42</xref>) have used a
    similar spatial measure for the Eye-Voice Span, calculating the distance
    (in letters) of the currently articulated letter relative to each fixation
    onset. This is the only existing example of a Backward Projective Approach
    that we are aware of, but the difference is that Laubrock and Kliegl
    measure their span from fixations backward to spatial locations in the
    text defined on the basis of oral production. In the case of music with a
    metrical temporal framework, analogous spatial locations can be found
    irrespective of motor performance.</p>

    <p>Calculating the ETS does not require synchronizing
    eye-tracking with a motor performance of the score, but only with one or
    more reference clicks (i.e. beat onsets) of the metronome governing the
    performance tempo. In comparison to “absolute” time, or clock time
    (measured in seconds), the metronome measures what can be called metrical
    time. With metrical time, we understand
    the succession of metrical beats that are typically organized in bars—both
    being temporal containers within which the notes can appear. To ensure
    temporal regularity in the performance, the passing of metrical time can be regulated with a metronome that
    is set to a particular tempo, say, 60 beats per minute (bpm). Hence a
    given stretch of metrical time, such as a 4/4
    bar, can take different absolute durations: At 60 bpm, it would take 4 s,
    but at 100 bpm, its duration would be 2.4 s, etc.</p>

    <p>Ideally, a notated score can be viewed as a visual graph of metrical time. If we read a
    simple score “as a metrical time scale,”
    imagining the metronome clicks to be horizontally “located” at the
    graphical quarter note symbols, any fixations landing on the score can
    similarly be assigned a position in metrical
    time. For instance, a fixation landing in the space between two
    note symbols, being horizontally one third of their mutual distance away
    from the symbol on the left, would be deemed 0.33 beats ahead of the beat
    onset on which the first note is supposed to be performed. This is an
    idealization of the relationship between metrical
    time and the score, but can be made to work in experimental
    settings, and leads to precise span measurements. In
    brief, then, the ETS for any fixation <italic>F</italic> is the distance, in beats, between
    the horizontal position of <italic>F</italic>
    in the musical score, and another—typically
    prior—position that corresponds to the point
    of metrical time at the onset of <italic>F</italic>. In our first simplified example of
    Early Attraction (Fig. 1), the four moments could now be seen as the onset
    times of fixations. If so, the metrical distance from each fixation back
    to the temporal cursor would correspond to the ETS for the fixations in
    question. For the first three fixations depicted (occurring at points of
    absolute time <italic>t</italic><sub><italic>1</italic></sub><italic>–t</italic><sub><italic>3</italic></sub>), the ETS is 1.5 beats,
    while for the last fixation (at <italic>t</italic><sub><italic>4</italic></sub>), it is 2.5
    beats.</p>

    <p>Proposing the ETS as a measure of visual
    and/or music-structural salience implies that we are primarily interested
    in measuring it for the first fixation falling on each notated symbol. In
    music reading, fixations might not land exactly on the note symbols, but
    near them (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b32 b43">32, 43</xref>), and hence we need to determine an area of
    interest (AOI) around each symbol to find the first fixation on this
    area. In the following, AOIs will only be used
    to allocate fixations to note symbols. For any first fixation allocated to
    a symbol, the measurement of the ETS will be based on the actual
    horizontal location of the fixation.</p>
    </sec>
	
    <sec id="S1c">
      <title>Aims</title>

    <p>We are now in a position to operationalize the Early Attraction
    Hypothesis. We suppose that local increases in music-structural complexity
    (and thus visual salience) of the score may bring about local,
    stimulus-driven lengthening of the ETS. This type of effect has not been
    shown before, and hence it is not quite clear how this might happen, if it
    does at all. For orientation, we present two alternative sub-hypotheses
    that differ in terms of the accuracy of targeting the
    “looking-ahead-reactions.” According to the most straightforward,
    intuitive expectation, salient note symbols themselves catch the reader’s
    attention from a longer distance, provoking early oculomotor responses
    that result in relatively long ETSs for the elements in question. In this
    case, the ETS would turn out to function as a direct measure of
    music-structural (and/or visual) salience of the notated symbols to which
    the spans are anchored at the front end. Alternatively, it might be that
    spotting something challenging in the parafovea results in quickly
    fixating a bit closer toward the target. This might involve a saccadic
    range error in which saccades from more distant launch sites may
    “undershoot,” that is, fall short of their targets (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b17 b44">17, 44</xref>). Note that if
    the perceptual span of a sight reader may
    extend 2–4 beats to the right from a given fixation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b32 b34 b45">32, 34, 45</xref>), then
    a “looking-ahead-fixation” landing this much before the target element
    might, in fact, suffice for decoding the information at the target
    element, too. In any case, for early responses to salient
    targets, the alternative sub-hypothesis would suggest that the longer
    spans do not necessarily fall on the targets themselves, but rather on the
    areas preceding them. </p>

    <p>Notice that while both of these effects would support the Early
    Attraction Hypothesis, it would require a separate analysis of the length
    of incoming saccades to interpret them in terms of Distant Attraction.
    This is because, logically speaking, it would be possible for the reader
    to reach the difficult upcoming symbols with successions of shorter
    saccades, too. However, our working assumption is that any stimulus-driven
    effects of Early Attraction (shown by long local measurements of ETS) are
    most likely to come about by Distant Attraction (shown by measurements of
    long incoming saccades to the same areas). The phenomenon of Early
    Attraction cannot be measured by saccades only; nevertheless,
    understanding the specific eye-movement strategies in play requires
    saccadic analysis, in addition to the ETS.</p>

    <p>In the following, we examine such potential music-structural
    effects on “looking ahead” in two sight-reading experiments. To give a
    balanced view of potential attraction effects, we incorporate two further
    variables that might conceivably affect the presence and extent of such
    effects. First, both of our experiments involve performances at two
    different controlled tempi. The effects of regulated tempo on looking
    ahead in music reading have been ill-studied (exceptions being (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b4 b29 b33">4, 29, 33</xref>)),
    but it is obvious that with a measure such as the ETS, tempo should be
    taken into account. This is because an increase in tempo shortens the
    absolute duration of the temporal buffer that a given ETS would allow the
    music reader for preparing motor performance. Thus we may expect ETS to
    increase with tempo to counterbalance this predicament. However, we can
    give no considered predictions on whether such tempo effects would
    interact with local stimulus complexity.</p>

    <p>Second, considering that previous literature is not unequivocal
    about the influence of musical experience on the amount of looking ahead
    (e.g., (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b29">29</xref>) vs. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b4">4</xref>)), our first experiment involves competent music readers
    with intermediate and high levels of expertise. Here, one might simply
    expect an overall effect of expertise in terms of longer ETSs for the more
    experienced musicians, but it is conceivable that such musicians would
    also be more sensitive to the local notated details, showing stronger
    effects of Early Attraction, as well. </p>

    <p>On purpose, we start with very simple sight-reading situations
    in which we expect musically competent participants to make few if any
    errors. We believe that if music reading is, to quote Sloboda’s (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b46">46</xref>), p.
    235, memorable words, a “genuine species of music perception,” one should
    expect the visual processing of experienced readers to flexibly
    accommodate the features of the notated stimuli—also in circumstances in
    which reading is effortless and the readers need not function at the
    limits of their capacities.</p>
    </sec>
    </sec>
	
    <sec id="S2">
      <title>Experiment 1</title>
    <sec id="S2a">
      <title>Method</title>

    <p><italic>Participants.</italic>Our original number of participants
    (40) was cut down to 37 by missing eye-movement data in two cases, and by
    highly exceptional ETS measurements in one case. The 37 participants
    included (a) 14 students (9 females, 5 males) of music performance at a
    Finnish conservatory and (b) 23 musically active education majors (15
    females, 8 males) minoring in music education at the department of teacher
    education of a Finnish university (incl. one health care major with a
    degree in cello performance). The two groups are henceforth titled
    “performance majors” and “education majors,” respectively. The
    participants were between 17 and 36 years old, the average ages being 24.4
    years for the performance and 25.8 years for the education majors
    (<italic>SD</italic> = 4.6 years for both groups).</p>

    <p>Although admission to both study programs required passing
    program-specific tests of musicality and musical performance, the two
    participant groups were considered to represent different levels of
    musical expertise: The performance majors were under full-time training to
    become professional musicians and/or instrumental teachers, whereas for
    the education majors, instrumental performance was only one part of their
    minor subject studies (the study curriculum aims to train the students to
    give classroom music lessons) and a hobby. All but one participant (an
    education major) included the piano in their personal list of instruments.
    Out of 14 performance majors, 13 had completed professional-level piano
    degrees, and one an elementary-level degree; 11 of them reported the piano
    as their main instrument. Likewise, 11 of the education majors marked the
    piano as their main instrument, and 11 had completed piano degrees on the
    professional (6) or elementary (5) level. The performance majors, on
    average, reported slightly more years of active piano playing (<italic>M</italic> =
    14.8, <italic>SD </italic>= 5.2) than the education majors (<italic>M</italic> = 11.3, <italic>SD
    </italic>= 6.6), but the difference was not significant according to an
    independent samples <italic>t</italic>-test (<italic>t</italic>[32] = –1.649; <italic>p </italic>=
    .109). Participation was voluntary and rewarded with a cafeteria voucher
    or course credit.</p>

    <p><italic>Stimulus Materials.</italic>The stimulus set consisted of
    12 five-bar melodies notated in G-clef in 4/4 time, each of them using the
    first five diatonic pitches of the C major scale (see Fig. 3). Three
    separate sets of four melodies were included, one for each of the
    conditions: Bar line, Mid-bar, and Stepwise (the total set of melodies
    differed from the one in Penttinen &#x26; Huovinen [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2 b15">2, 15</xref>] by the addition
    of the Stepwise condition). Each condition involved four stimuli: two
    original melodies beginning on C4 and two corresponding diatonic
    inversions beginning on G4 (i.e., “upside-down versions” of the same
    melodic contour). All of the melodies ended on an E4 whole note after four
    bars of continuous quarter notes. The fingering for the first note was
    indicated by numbers “1” (index finger on C4) or “5” (little finger on G4)
    in order to ensure that the participants would not need to move their hand
    during playing. The Stepwise melodies consisted of entirely stepwise
    successions of notes, while the Bar line and Mid-bar melodies had two
    larger intervals of a perfect fourth and a perfect fifth placed at either
    the bar lines of bar 3, or two quarter-note beats after them. The Stepwise
    melodies closely followed the melodies in the two other conditions,
    including the note repetition that was needed in the Bar line and Mid-bar
    conditions to place the skips at the intended locations, but also included
    another note repetition required for ending on E4.</p>

    <p>The stimulus melodies were written with Sibelius music notation
    software, setting the note stems exactly at equal 15 mm-distance (0.59 in)
    from one another, and the bar lines exactly at the midpoint between two
    note stems. The height of the staff system was 9 mm (0.35 in) and the
    width of bars 2, 3 and 4 was 60 mm (2.36 in).</p>

    <p>For presentation in the experiment, the melodies were organized
    into four different presentation orders of 12 trials each. Each
    presentation order was subject to the requirements that (i) no two
    successive melodies would represent the same condition (Bar line, Mid-bar,
    Stepwise), and (ii) within the succession of 12 melodies, both consecutive
    sets of six melodies would always include one of the original melodies for
    each condition, as well as its inversion. </p>

<fig id="fig03" fig-type="figure" position="float">
					<label>Fig 3.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>The 12 stimulus melodies in Experiment 1. The grey bubbles
    are here added to indicate the intervallic skips involved; The dashed line
    circumscribes the six notes that were taken into account in the
    analysis.</p>
					</caption>
					<graphic id="graph03" xlink:href="jemr-11-02-c-figure-03.png"/>
				</fig>


    <p><italic>Apparatus.</italic> Eye-movement recordings were conducted using a
    Tobii TX300 Eye Tracker (Tobii Technology AB,
    Stockholm, Sweden). Both eyes were tracked with a sampling rate of 300 Hz,
    and with an accuracy of 0.4 degrees (binocular). For presenting the
    stimuli, we used a 23” widescreen TFT monitor
    with a screen resolution of 1,920 x 1,080
    pixels. The participants were seated with their eyes
    approximately at a 65 cm distance from the screen. Their performances on a
    Yamaha electric piano were recorded using the Power Tracks Pro Audio
    sequencer software that also provided the metronome click.</p>

    <p><italic>Procedure</italic>. The participants were randomly assigned
    to the four presentation orders of the stimuli by letting them select
    suitable times for the experimental session themselves, and by rotating
    the presentation orders between successive participants. The experiment
    was conducted individually for each participant, in the presence of one
    experimenter (the third author).</p>

    <p>On entering the laboratory, each participant was first asked to
    fill out a written questionnaire about his/her musical background, and was
    then introduced to the laboratory setting in which a computer screen was
    positioned right behind a keyboard, assuming the role of a music stand
    (Fig. 4). After allowing the participant to adjust the piano seat at a
    comfortable height, a five-point calibration procedure was carried out,
    and the participant was asked to perform two practice trials incorporating
    melodies similar to the ones used in the experiment, using the right hand
    only, at the tempo given by the metronome set at 60 bpm. The practice
    trials acquainted the participant with the research protocol in which the
    metronome would be constantly ticking, written instructions about the
    procedure would appear on the screen between the melodies when needed, and
    the location of the first melody note for each trial would always be
    indicated in advance by an “X” appearing on the screen two metronome
    clicks before the staff appeared. The participant was instructed to wait
    for two more metronome clicks after the appearance of the staff before
    starting the performance. </p>

    <p>After a new calibration, the 12 experimental trials followed the
    procedure of the practice trials, except that the first six melodies would
    always be performed at the tempo of 60 bpm, and the last six at 100 bpm.
    The participant only played each melody once. The experimenter switched
    the images (including the notated stimulus melodies) on the screen by
    pressing the space bar on a separate computer, synchronizing her actions
    with the metronome clicks.</p>

<fig id="fig04" fig-type="figure" position="float">
					<label>Fig 4.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>The setup of the eye-tracker and the electric piano in
    Experiment 1, demonstrated by a colleague of the authors. A similar setup
    was applied in Experiment 2.</p>
					</caption>
					<graphic id="graph04" xlink:href="jemr-11-02-c-figure-04.png"/>
				</fig>
    </sec>
	
    <sec id="S2b">
      <title>Data analysis</title>

    <p><italic>Data set.</italic> Our aim was to analyze what happened in
    error-free “model performances” of the stimuli in and around the area that
    (in two of the conditions) included the larger intervallic skips. First,
    then, we restricted our data set to correct performances by excluding
    all trials that included any clear performance
    errors, defined as wrong notes appearing instead of, or in addition to,
    the notes specified by the notated score of the given trial. By using MIDI
    information to analyze the 444 trials, we identified 17 trials with one or
    more such errors, leaving us with 427 successful performances. Second, in order to
    minimize, as far as possible, any effects of beginning or ending the
    melody (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">2</xref>), we further restricted all of our analyses to the six
    quarter notes (i.e., six AOIs) appearing within the area marked with a
    dashed line in Fig. 3.</p>

    <p>A fixation was defined according to the default
    setting of Tobii Studio 2.2.8, with velocity and distance thresholds of 35
    pixels/sample. Only fixations targeting the staff system
    and related to the actual reading of musical notation were included in the
    analysis, and so the AOIs only extended vertically to a 35-pixel distance
    (9.5 mm/0.38 in) from the outermost staff lines. The limit was set in an
    explorative manner, with the goal of excluding clear outliers while
    including as many potentially task-relevant fixations as possible. With
    such a limit, 89.1% of all fixations between the first and last note
    onsets in the trials fell within this visual area. For assigning fixations to particular note symbols, the
    visual field corresponding to the second half of bar 2 and the entire bar
    3 was then segmented into six,
    rectangular areas of interest (AOIs), equal in size, and each
    corresponding to a quarter-note symbol. The lines between
    AOIs were drawn exactly between the note stems. </p>

    <p>Based on the first fixations targeting the AOIs,
    measurements of ETS and incoming saccade length were assigned to the six
    notes in the analyzed bars. For better comparability, both ETS and
    incoming saccade length were analyzed for the same set of first fixations
    to AOIs. For this purpose, we left out any first fixations that
    corresponded to (i) negative measurements of ETS (six; 0.25 %) and (ii) regressive incoming
    saccades (144; 6.01 %), both of which would be irrelevant for our
    theoretical concerns. Furthermore, we also left out (iii) first fixations
    for which the incoming saccade would be longer than the corresponding ETS
    measurement plus two beats (19; 0.79 %). This was to practically discard
    long saccades arising in situations in which the reader would have glanced
    back from the currently played notes (say, to check the key signature in
    the beginning of the line), followed by a long incoming saccade back to
    the point of reading. The excluded fixations,
    as well as the few above-mentioned trials with performance errors, were
    regarded as data missing completely at random. A total of
    2,232 first fixations were left for the analysis of ETS and incoming
    saccade length. Notice that this is the subset of fixations for which our
    measurements were to be defined, but, for measuring incoming saccades, the
    full original set of fixations was left available to provide information
    concerning prior saccade launch sites. Saccade lengths were thus
    calculated as horizontal distances to the previous fixation. To ensure
    comparability between our two measurements, we converted saccade lengths
    from pixels to metrical units (beats).</p>

    <p>Our measurements required synchronizing each
    participant’s eye-tracking data with the metronome clicks that had guided
    the performance (while the performance data from the piano could be
    ignored). The eye-tracking recordings included timestamps
    for the computer key presses with which the experimenter had switched the
    screen images on the metronome clicks. (In this respect, the experimenter
    showed relatively good accuracy: The experimental design involved six
    pairs of timestamps ideally produced 2 s apart; The 95% confidence
    interval for durations between them was [2001.6 ms, 2012.1 ms].) For each
    participant, we synchronized the eye-movement data with the metronome by
    taking all of these 12 timestamps in the tempo of 60 bpm, and by finding
    the median of the decimal parts of a second in these timestamps. This
    yielded an approximated reference value for the cyclically recurring beat
    onset, i.e., the metronome click. Using the reference value for the beat
    onset, all fixation onsets could be indexed with their metrical time of appearance in terms of
    metrical beats (of the score) and decimal parts thereof. For instance, if
    the metronome click is approximated to appear at 300 ms after each full
    second in the recording, if the performance begins at 12.3 s into the
    recording, and fixation <italic>F</italic> occurs, say, at 14.5 s in the recording
    (i.e., 200 ms after the second beat onset), then the metrical time of
    appearance for <italic>F</italic> is given as 2.2 beats. Since the tempo change to
    100 bpm had been pre-programmed in the sequencer software, the reference
    value for the beat onset in the second tempo could be similarly determined
    from the above-mentioned timestamps.</p>

    <p><italic>Statistical analysis.</italic> The data were analyzed by using
    generalized estimating equations (GEE)—an approach extending generalized
    linear models (GLMs) for longitudinal and correlated data (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b47 b48">47, 48</xref>).
    This approach leads to population average models (marginal models) where
    the interest lies in regression parameters instead of variation
    parameters. The method was applied because the data were correlated within
    individuals, due to the study design, and because the distributions of the
    ETS and incoming saccade lengths were skewed. The analyses were carried
    out using <italic>R</italic> software (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b49">49</xref>) with the package “geepack” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b50 b51 b52">50, 51, 52</xref>).
    We assumed a common correlation within observations, i.e., that each pair
    of a given participant’s observed values has approximately the same
    correlation. Note that we retained the individual observations instead of
    taking an average within a participant: Optimally, we thus had 72 (6x12)
    observations from each participant. The independent variables considered
    in the analysis were Tempo (60 bpm, 100 bpm), Expertise (performance
    majors, education majors), Condition (Stepwise, Bar line, Mid-bar), and
    Note (1–4). After these, the analysis involved the interaction
    Condition:Note (representing the precise effects of the melodic skip), all
    two-way interactions involving Expertise, as well as the three-way
    interaction Expertise:Condition:Note. For each analysis, the
    non-significant interaction terms involving Expertise were discarded from
    the final model. For all variables, we focus on interpreting the
    highest-order interaction of the final model, if significant. The
    estimated parameters of the fitted models are given in Appendices 1–2.
    (Note that the coefficients in the Appendix are always reported with
    respect to a reference level as in regression models. The comparisons made
    in the following Results section cannot thus be directly read off from the
    Appendices.) Pairwise post hoc comparisons of predictions resulting from
    GEE were conducted using the package “emmeans” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b53">53</xref>) in <italic>R</italic>, adjusting
    for multiple comparisons.</p>
    </sec>
	
    <sec id="S2c">
      <title>Results</title>

    <p><italic>Eye-Time Span</italic>. The mean ETS observed in the experiment
    was 2.12 beats (SD = 0.90, Mdn = 1.97). Given the skewness of the
    distribution (moment coefficient of skewness 2.28), we assumed a gamma
    distribution, and carried out a GEE analysis of the ETS by applying the
    inverse link function and exchangeable correlation structure. The Wald
    statistics on the fitted model are shown in Table 1. There were
    significant main effects of Expertise and Tempo, a nearly significant main effect of Condition, and, most
    importantly, a significant
    interaction between Condition and Note. Regarding the main effect of
    Expertise, the model indicates that the performance majors, on average,
    operated with longer ETS than the education majors.
    According to the predictions of the model, the difference in ETS between
    the two groups varied from 0.29 to 0.53 beats. The main effect of Tempo,
    in turn, indicated 0.21–0.41 beat longer spans at 100 bpm than at 60 bpm.
    This simply reflects the fact that when tempo
    increases (here, with a factor of 1.67), the reader will still need to
    allocate some reasonable time resources for symbol decoding and motor
    planning: Consequently, the ETS may also tend to increase at least
    somewhat (here, with a factor of around 1.1–1.2).</p>
	
<table-wrap id="t01" position="float">
					<label>Table 1.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>Wald statistics
          for the GEE analyses of first fixations to AOIs in Experiment
          1.</p>
					</caption>
					<table frame="hsides" rules="groups" cellpadding="3">
						<thead>
        <tr>
          <td></td>

          <td align="center" colspan="3">Eye-Time
          Span</td>

          <td align="center"></td>

          <td align="center" colspan="3">Incoming
          Saccade Length</td>
        </tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
        <tr>
          <td align="justify"></td>

          <td align="center"><italic>df</italic></td>

          <td align="center">&#x3A7;&#x00B2;</td>

          <td align="center"><italic>p</italic> </td>

          <td align="center"></td>

          <td align="center"><italic>df</italic></td>

          <td align="center">&#x3A7;&#x00B2;</td>

          <td align="center"><italic>p</italic> </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="justify">Expertise</td>

          <td align="center">1</td>

          <td align="center">11.66</td>

          <td align="center">&#x3C;
          .001***</td>

          <td align="center"></td>

          <td align="center">1</td>

          <td align="center">7.66</td>

          <td align="center">.006**</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="justify">Tempo</td>

          <td align="center">1</td>

          <td align="center">22.93</td>

          <td align="center">&#x3C;
          .001***</td>

          <td align="center"></td>

          <td align="center">1</td>

          <td align="center">0.00</td>

          <td align="center">.978</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="justify">Condition</td>

          <td align="center">2</td>

          <td align="center">5.94</td>

          <td align="center">.051</td>

          <td align="center"></td>

          <td align="center">2</td>

          <td align="center">0.76</td>

          <td align="center">.683</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="justify">Note</td>

          <td align="center">5</td>

          <td align="center">6.65</td>

          <td align="center">.248</td>

          <td align="center"></td>

          <td align="center">5</td>

          <td align="center">63.70</td>

          <td align="center">&#x3C;
          .001***</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="justify">Condition:Note</td>

          <td align="center">10</td>

          <td align="center">67.53</td>

          <td align="center">&#x3C;
          .001***</td>

          <td align="center"></td>

          <td align="center">10</td>

          <td align="center">26.73</td>

          <td align="center">.003**</td>
        </tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="FN1">
						<p>*** <italic>p</italic>&#x3C; .001, ** <italic>p</italic> &#x3C; .01, * <italic>p</italic> &#x3C;.05</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>	

<fig id="fig05" fig-type="figure" position="float">
					<label>Fig 5.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>Predicted values of ETS (by Condition and Note) for
    the group of performance majors in the tempo of 100 bpm in Experiment 1.
    ETS values are given for notes 3–4 of bar 2, and for notes 1–4 of bar 3
    (cf. Fig. 3); The vertical dashed line represents the bar line cutting
    across this area.</p>
					</caption>
					<graphic id="graph05" xlink:href="jemr-11-02-c-figure-05.png"/>
				</fig>


    <p>The interaction between Condition and Note
    indicates local, stimulus-driven effects on the length of the ETS.
    Predicted values for performance majors in the tempo of 100 bpm are
    plotted in Fig. 5. In the Mid-bar condition, the highest peaks appeared on
    the notes following the skip. For these two notes, Tukey’s post hoc tests
    showed the value for the Mid-bar condition to differ significantly both
    from the Stepwise (bar 3, note 3: <italic>p</italic> = .048; note 4: <italic>p</italic> =
    .022) and the Bar line values (bar 3, note 3: <italic>p</italic> = .011; note 4:
    <italic>p</italic> = .012). In the Bar line condition, the clearest peak likewise
    appeared directly following the skip, on the first note of bar 3; Tukey’s
    tests indicated a significant difference from the Mid-bar value (<italic>p</italic>
    = .016), although not from the Stepwise condition that seemed to show some
    meter effect on the downbeat. However, in the Bar line condition there was
    a high value also on the note preceding the skip (bar 2, note 4), with
    significant differences to the Stepwise (<italic>p</italic> = .001) and Mid-bar
    conditions (<italic>p</italic> &#x3C; .001). All other paired comparisons were
    non-significant (<italic>p</italic> &#x3E; .05). In sum, ETS peaked exactly at the
    notes that we had assumed to exhibit points of local music-structural
    complexity, as well as points of heightened visual salience, but high
    values were also observed at the preceding note in the Bar line condition.
    All of these results are in line with the Early Attraction
    Hypothesis.</p>

    <p><italic>Incoming saccade length</italic>. The incoming saccades to AOIs had an
    average length of 1.13 beats (SD = 0.55, Mdn = 1.02). In order to test if
    the melodic skips also affected the length of incoming saccades, we
    carried out a separate GEE analysis for the incoming saccade lengths at
    first fixations. Assuming a gamma distribution due to skewness (moment
    coefficient of skewness 5.46), we applied the inverse link function and
    exchangeable correlation structure. The results showed significant main
    effects of Expertise and Note, as well as a significant interaction
    between Condition and Note (see Table 1). The expertise effect indicated
    longer incoming saccades for the performance majors. According to the
    predictions from the model, the difference in incoming saccade length
    between groups varied from 0.09 to 0.14 beats. The predicted values are
    shown in Fig. 6, and again, they appear to reflect the melodic skips.
    According to a Tukey’s test, the note after the skip in the Bar line
    condition (bar 3, note 1) received significantly longer incoming saccades
    than the same note in the Stepwise condition (<italic>p</italic> = .031). Likewise,
    the note after the skip in the Mid-bar condition differed significantly
    from the corresponding note in the Bar line condition (<italic>p</italic> = .011).
    All other differences were non-significant. These results, although
    somewhat milder than those for the ETS, are nevertheless clearly in line with the Distant Attraction hypothesis that expects
    the visually and music-structurally most salient notes to attract saccades
    from relatively distant launch sites.</p>

    <p>Pooling all participants and conditions together,
    we may look at the relationship between ETS and the length of incoming
    saccades. According to Spearman rank correlations, there was a significant
    positive association between these measurements both in the tempo of 60
    bpm (<italic>&#x3C1;</italic>[1,117]= 0.317, <italic>p</italic> &#x3C; .001),
    and in the tempo of 100 bpm (<italic>&#x3C1;</italic>[1,111]=
    0.282, <italic>p</italic>&#x3C; .001). Although this analysis does not take into
    account within-subject correlation, it seems that a long ETS is quite
    often due to an extended incoming saccade. As exemplified in Fig. 7 for
    the higher of the two tempi, typical ETS measurements of around 2 beats
    might often correspond to incoming saccade measurements of around 1 beat,
    but longer ETS measurements would often correspond to slightly longer
    incoming saccades.</p>
    </sec>
	
    <sec id="S2d">
      <title>Discussion of Experiment 1</title>

    <p>This study addressed local, stimulus-driven effects on “looking
    ahead” in simple sight-reading tasks. The results indicate that ETS
    measurements may be sensitive even to small changes in the relative
    complexity of musical material. By interspersing stepwise, diatonic
    melodies with melodic skips of a fourth or a fifth, we could elicit
    significant variations in ETS between quarter notes, as suggested by the
    Early Attraction Hypothesis. The predicted values given by GEE suggested
    that first fixations to notes were typically most ahead of the
    metrical time just after the
    skip (see Fig. 5). This shows a direct Early Attraction effect to the
    notes that were expected to represent the highest music-structural
    complexity, as well as visual salience. In one of the skip conditions,
    high values were also observed just before the skip, which gives qualified
    support for the idea that Early Attraction could be seen even on notes
    preceding the local complexity.</p>

<fig id="fig06" fig-type="figure" position="float">
					<label>Fig 6.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>Predicted values of incoming saccade lengths (by
    Condition and Note) for the group of performance majors in the tempo of
    100 bpm in Experiment 1. The values are given for notes 3–4 of bar 2, and
    for notes 1–4 of bar 3; The vertical dashed line represents the bar
    line.</p>
					</caption>
					<graphic id="graph06" xlink:href="jemr-11-02-c-figure-06.png"/>
				</fig>

<fig id="fig07" fig-type="figure" position="float">
					<label>Fig 7.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>The relationship between
    incoming saccade length and ETS (with histograms for both variables) at
    the tempo of 100 bpm in Experiment 1.</p>
					</caption>
					<graphic id="graph07" xlink:href="jemr-11-02-c-figure-07.png"/>
				</fig>

    <p>In order to interpret such Early Attraction, we also looked at
    incoming saccade lengths at the same AOIs (i.e., for the same set of first
    fixations on note symbols). Again, the placement of the melodic skips had
    a significant effect on the measurements: In both skip conditions, long
    incoming saccades, differing significantly from at least one of the other
    conditions, were observed at the notes following the skip. This is in line
    with the Distant Attraction Hypothesis, although we may note that the
    differences between the conditions were smaller than for the ETS results.
    This is not surprising, as the readers’ gaze tended to proceed from note
    to note, and this measurement took into account the distance between two
    fixations. Over and above the local effects of the melodic conditions, we
    also observed highly significant overall correlations between incoming
    saccade lengths and ETS measurements. All of this suggests that, even in
    trivially simple sight-reading tasks such as these, the local variability
    of ETS is at least in part due to long forward saccades, and that a
    notable part of such saccades represents quick reactions to upcoming,
    visually salient complexities in the musical structure.</p>

    <p>In addition, our results indicate tempo- and expertise-related
    increases in ETS, but neither of these variables interacted with the local
    stimulus-driven effects. While the overall tempo effect was in the
    expected direction, and requires no further comment, the effect of
    expertise is more notable. In both of the two performance tempi,
    professional musicians (performance majors) generally used larger ETSs
    than amateur musicians (education majors). In the literature on the
    Eye-Hand Span, it has previously been suggested that such a measure—when
    determined using the Single-Item Lag Approach—would be largely independent
    of the skill level of the performer, with average values somewhere around
    one second (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b29 b30">29, 30</xref>). In a study with controlled performance tempi, a
    Forward Projective Approach to span measurement, and span lengths roughly
    categorized on the level of metrical beats, Penttinen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b4">4</xref>)
    nevertheless found experienced musicians to use longer spans more often
    than was the case for amateur musicians. The present results—obtained
    using a more accurate Backward Projective Approach—similarly suggest that
    expert music readers may, indeed, look farther ahead in the music than
    less proficient individuals. Given the possibility to read our stimulus
    score “as a time scale,” and given the controlled tempi, our results
    suggest an absolute time difference of 300–400 ms in the medians between
    the two participant groups, depending on tempo (with medians of 2074 ms
    and 1492 ms for the more experienced group, in the tempi of 60 bpm and 100
    bpm, respectively). These findings differ from the earlier Eye-Hand Span
    measurements, and for a good reason: In determining the ETS for first
    fixations to a given area, we are focusing on the subset of spans in which
    any stimulus effects should be reflected, and in which any skill
    differences are consequently most likely to surface. Nevertheless, the
    lack of any significant interactions involving Expertise, Condition, and
    Note suggests that the observed stimulus-driven effects were already in
    place with our intermediate group of education majors.</p>

    <p> In sum, then, the results of Experiment 1 would seem to lend
    support to the notion of Early Attraction (“looking ahead” to points of
    local complexity), as well as to that of Distant Attraction (long saccades
    to points of local complexity). The results suggest that even small local
    irregularities in the notated stimulus may lead competent music readers to
    anticipate the potential processing difficulty by quickly looking farther
    ahead. This leaves open how the situation would change if the local
    complexities would be increased: Would the effect remain the same, or
    would it be stronger? Experiment 2 was hence designed with the purpose of
    teasing out stronger stimulus-driven effects by increasing the visual
    saliency and music-structural complexity of the target. At the same time,
    we wanted to embed the targets in longer sight-reading tasks, giving the
    reader more time to establish a suitable processing style. It was supposed
    that an intensification of the “visual irregularity” at the target element
    might bring about an even clearer result in terms of long forward saccades
    to (or toward) the target note, also resulting in larger ETSs at the
    target. As our main interest lies in longer, stimulus-driven spans, and
    given that Experiment 1 suggested such looking-ahead reactions to be
    pronounced in expert musicians’ reading, we chose to focus exclusively on
    highly experienced music readers.</p>
    </sec>
    </sec>
	
    <sec id="S3">
      <title>Experiment 2</title>
    <sec id="S3a">
      <title>Method</title>


    <p><italic>Participants.</italic> The original group
    of participants consisted of 26 professional piano students from three
    Finnish universities. For some individuals, performing the
    32-bar melodies of Exp. 2 (see Fig 8) resulted in head movements during
    performance and therefore calibration difficulties. We thus conducted a
    detailed video-based pre-analysis of the eye-movement recordings, in which
    the data set was checked for its quality row by row (total of 32 staves of
    music notation for each of the 26 participants; see Stimulus materials,
    below). In order to get enough points of measurement from each participant
    for a comprehensive data set, we decided to include the 14 participants
    for whom the pre-analysis indicated no precision errors. The following
    analysis is thus based on 14 participants (incl. 12 females, 2 males) whose data did not
    contain missing events or poor data quality.</p>

    <p>11 of the 14 participants already had a prior conservatory or
    university degree in piano performance. Their ages varied between 20 and
    58, with an average of 28.2 years (<italic>SD</italic> = 9.5). The reported years of
    playing the piano varied between 7–42, with a group average of 19.1 years
    (<italic>SD</italic> = 8.7). The participants reported an average of 14.1 hours of
    weekly music-making (<italic>SD</italic> = 9.8) and 15.4 hours of weekly music
    reading (<italic>SD</italic> = 10.9), the latter figure including playing from
    written notation, silent music reading, and any other notation-related
    activities such as writing scores or teaching notation. Participation was
    voluntary and rewarded with a cafeteria voucher.</p>

    <p><italic>Stimulus Materials.</italic> The stimulus set for Experiment 2
    comprised eight mostly stepwise melodies in 4/4 time, each consisting of
    merely quarter notes, laid out in four staves, six bars per staff
    (see Fig. 8). The melodies were
    divided into two sets of four so that there would be two sets of different
    original melodies in the keys of G, C, F, and Bb. On each of the four
    staves in each melody, one larger intervallic skip (minor sixth) was
    inserted in one of the bars 3–5.
    The latter note in each skip was chromatically altered with
    an accidental, and this target note was always the last note in its bar.
    In each melody, the four targets constituted upper and lower chromatic
    neighbors leading to scale degrees II and V of the key. Each skip was
    preceded by at least one bar of stepwise
    movement, reversing at the skip. After the skip, the
    registral direction of the melody was again reversed by a stepwise melodic
    progression “filling the gap” (as is conventional in tonal musical styles;
    see 54). For half of the melodies, the first staff system had the target
    note in the third bar, and for half of them, it was in the fourth bar. In
    each melody, the same target position was also used for the last staff
    system, and the two middle systems had the target in bars 4 and 5, or in
    bars 3 and 5, complementing the first and last targets in bars 3 or
    4. As seen from the example of Fig. 8, the
    rest of each melody would be
    filled in by stepwise movement, beginning and ending on a tonic note,
    avoiding repeating notes, two-note patterns and consecutively repeated
    bars (and inserting one interval of third in each system, if required to
    reach the next target pattern or final note with a stepwise movement).
    Note that now there was no simple correspondence between the five fingers
    and specific notes, as in Experiment 1, but that the participants had to
    find their fingerings on the fly, making for somewhat more challenging,
    but realistic performances.</p>

    <p>For presentation in two experimental conditions,
    one of the sequences of melodies in the keys of G, C, F, and Bb was
    assigned to the tempo of 60 bpm, while the other sequence was assigned to
    the tempo of 100 bpm. To counterbalance effects of the specific melodies
    and participant fatigue, four stimulus sets were assigned to the two tempo
    conditions in a 2x2 design by switching between the two sequences of
    melodies, as well as the internal order of the melodies in a sequence (and
    thus the keys: G–C–F–Bb or Bb–F–C–G).</p>

<fig id="fig08" fig-type="figure" position="float">
					<label>Fig 8.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>One of the eight stimulus melodies applied in Experiment 2.
    The dashed rectangles are here added to mark the Skip and Stepwise bars
    used in the data analysis; the grey bubbles are added to indicate the
    intervallic skips involved.</p>
					</caption>
					<graphic id="graph08" xlink:href="jemr-11-02-c-figure-08.png"/>
				</fig>

    <p>The stimulus melodies were written with Sibelius music notation
    software. The height of the whole four-staff system, when presented on the
    screen, was 127 mm (5.0 in; 10.5 mm [0.4 in] for one staff system), and
    the width was 299 mm (11.8 in). The distance between bar lines was 48 mm
    (1.9 in). Within the analyzed bars (see Fig. 8), the centers of two note
    heads were 11 mm (0.4 in) apart. Across a bar line, due to a more natural
    layout, this distance was 15 mm (0.6 in).</p>

    <p><italic>Apparatus.</italic> Eye-movement recordings were conducted using a
    Tobii T60XL Eye Tracker (Tobii Technology AB,
    Stockholm, Sweden). Both eyes were tracked with a sampling rate of 60 Hz,
    with an accuracy of 0.5 degrees. For presenting the stimuli, we used a
    23” widescreen TFT monitor with
    a screen resolution of 1,920 x 1,200 pixels. The
    participants were seated with their eyes approximately at a 65 cm distance
    from the screen. Their performances on a Yamaha electric piano were
    recorded using the Logic Pro X sequencer software that also provided the
    metronome click.</p>

    <p><italic>Procedure.</italic> The participants were randomly assigned to the four
    stimulus sets by letting them select suitable times for the experimental
    session themselves, and by rotating the presentation orders between
    successive participants. The experiment was conducted individually for
    each participant, in the presence of one experimenter (the third author).
    The procedure in the laboratory was similar to that applied in Experiment
    1. During the task, the participant constantly heard a metronome click.
    After a slide naming the key of the upcoming melody, an “X” would always
    appear on the screen four beats prior to the appearance of the staff; the
    participant was instructed to start playing after two more beats. Two
    melodic stimuli, following similar compositional rules as the experimental
    items, but in the keys of D and Eb, were used as practice items in the
    tempo of 60 bpm. After this, the participant performed the first four
    melodies in the tempo of 60 bpm, after which there was a tempo change in
    the metronome, and four other melodies were performed at 100 bpm.</p>
    </sec>
	
    <sec id="S3b">
      <title>Data Analysis</title>

    <p><italic>Data set.</italic> The eye-tracking was subject to some data loss
    in that on the lowest staff in the stimuli, some of the fixations fell
    below the stimulus image and were left unrecorded. To be conservative, the
    following analysis is based on the first three staves. Each of the target
    bars involving a larger intervallic skip was counted as one experimental
    item for a Skip condition, and hence every participant contributed
    eye-movement data concerning 12 such items at 60 bpm and 12 items at 100
    bpm. In addition, a Stepwise condition was created by sampling an equal
    number of bars with only stepwise melodic movement (for each staff system
    with the target being at bars 3, 4, or 5, the Stepwise bar was picked at
    bars 5, 2, or 3, respectively; see Fig. 8). As in the first experiment,
    the data set was restricted to correct performances by excluding
    bars with any performance errors (defined as
    before). Excluding eight Skip or Stepwise bars with one or more errors,
    and one whole trial because of a tempo error, the data set consisted in
    the eye-movement recordings for 330 correctly executed Skip bars and 328
    correctly executed Stepwise bars.</p>

    <p>A fixation was defined according to the default
    setting of Tobii Studio 3.3.0, with velocity and distance thresholds of 35
    pixels/sample. In the score, the Skip and Stepwise bars were segmented
    into four rectangular AOIs each, drawing the lines between the AOIs at bar
    lines and, within each bar, at the exact midpoints between the note heads
    (stems were not used for this purpose now, as they would flip on the left
    side of the note head in a higher register). Due to the more realistic
    score layout compared to Experiment 1, the first and last AOIs of each bar
    were somewhat narrower and broader than the others, respectively, but this
    was deemed immaterial given that the same layout was used in both
    conditions.</p>

    <p>As in Exp. 1, measures of ETS and incoming saccade
    length were determined for the same set of first fixations to AOIs. As
    before, we left out all such fixations for which (i) ETS was negative
    (seven; 0.31 %), (ii) the incoming saccade was regressive (182; 8.11 %),
    or (iii) the incoming saccade was longer than the corresponding ETS
    measurements plus two beats (42; 1.87 %). A total of 2,014 first fixations
    were left for the analysis of ETS and incoming saccade length. The
    excluded fixations, as well as the few above-mentioned bars with
    performance errors, were regarded as data missing completely at
    random.</p>

    <p>The eye-movement data were synchronized with the metronome using
    12 timestamps from the experimenter’s key presses as in Exp. 1. (For each
    participant, these included 4 pairs of timestamps ideally produced 4 s
    apart when the “X” was visible on the screen; The 95% confidence interval
    for these time intervals was [3974.6 ms, 4004.3 ms], suggesting relatively
    good accuracy.)</p>
	
	<table-wrap id="t02" position="float">
					<label>Table 2.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>Wald statistics for
          the GEE analyses of first fixations to AOIs in Experiment
          2.</p>
					</caption>
					<table frame="hsides" rules="groups" cellpadding="3">
						<thead>
        <tr>
          <td></td>

          <td align="center" colspan="3">Eye-Time
          Span</td>

          <td align="center"></td>

          <td align="center" colspan="3">Incoming
          Saccade Length</td>
        </tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
        <tr>
          <td align="justify"></td>

          <td align="center"><italic>df</italic></td>

          <td align="center">&#x3A7;&#x00B2;</td>

          <td align="center"><italic>p</italic> </td>

          <td align="center"></td>

          <td align="center"><italic>df</italic></td>

          <td align="center">&#x3A7;&#x00B2;</td>

          <td align="center"><italic>p</italic> </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="justify">Tempo</td>

          <td align="center">1</td>

          <td align="center">1.06</td>

          <td align="center">0.303</td>

          <td align="center"></td>

          <td align="center">1</td>

          <td align="center">1.48</td>

          <td align="center">.223</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="justify">Condition</td>

          <td align="center">1</td>

          <td align="center">29.40</td>

          <td align="center">&#x3C;
          .001***</td>

          <td align="center"></td>

          <td align="center">1</td>

          <td align="center">11.85</td>

          <td align="center">&#x3C;
          .001***</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="justify">Note</td>

          <td align="center">3</td>

          <td align="center">11.07</td>

          <td align="center">.011*</td>

          <td align="center"></td>

          <td align="center">3</td>

          <td align="center">12.72</td>

          <td align="center">.005**</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="justify">Condition:Note</td>

          <td align="center">3</td>

          <td align="center">13.71</td>

          <td align="center">.003**</td>

          <td align="center"></td>

          <td align="center">3</td>

          <td align="center">6.71</td>

          <td align="center">.082</td>
        </tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="FN2">
						<p>*** <italic>p</italic>&#x3C; .001, ** <italic>p</italic> &#x3C; .01, * <italic>p</italic> &#x3C;.05</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>

<fig id="fig09" fig-type="figure" position="float">
					<label>Fig 9.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>Predicted values of ETS (by Condition and Note) in the
    tempo of 100 bpm in Experiment 2. In the Skip condition, Note 4 was the
    target following the skip</p>
					</caption>
					<graphic id="graph09" xlink:href="jemr-11-02-c-figure-09.png"/>
				</fig>

    <p><italic>Statistical analysis.</italic> The
    data were analyzed following the same procedure as in Exp. 1, except that
    now the variables only included Tempo (60 bpm, 100 bm), Condition
    (Stepwise, Skip), and Note (1–4), as well as the
    interaction Condition:Note. The estimated parameters of the fitted models
    are given in Appendices 3–4. As above, we will focus on interpreting the
    highest-order interaction, when significant.</p>
    </sec>
	
    <sec id="S3c">
      <title>Results</title>

    <p><italic>Eye-Time Span</italic>. The
    average ETS was 2.93 beats (SD = 1.32, Mdn = 2.70). Fitting a GEE model
    proceeded according to the same technical details as outlined for the
    first experiment, using a gamma distribution due to the skewness of the
    distribution (moment coefficient of skewness 2.28). The results are shown
    in Table 2. The main effect of Tempo was not significant. Instead,
    there were significant main effects of Condition
    and Note, and, most importantly, an interaction between Condition
    and Note. Tukey’s tests showed significant differences between the two
    conditions on notes 1–3 (all <italic>p</italic>s &#x3C; .001), but not on note 4
    (<italic>p</italic> &#x3E; .1). Predicted values for the four notes are shown in Fig.
    9. What is seen here is that the impending, relatively more salient
    element on the fourth beat of the bar has generally led the participants,
    on a group level, to use longer spans on the first three beats of the bar.
    Notably, then, the significant Condition:Note interaction was not
    generally due to longer spans being targeted to the salient point of
    structural complexity at the fourth note. Rather, the notes preceding this
    point received longer spans. These results are in line with the Early
    Attraction Hypothesis, but suggest that the ETS effects of upcoming
    difficulties may not only be recorded on the relatively complex symbols
    themselves, but also on the previous ones.</p>

    <p><italic>Incoming saccade length</italic>. The average length of incoming saccades was 1.39 beats (SD
    = 0.63, Mdn = 1.28). In order to analyze the effects of the melodic
    condition on incoming saccade length, we also carried out a GEE analysis
    for this dependent measure (the technical details being as in Experiment
    1; moment coefficient of skewness 2.38). The results are given in Table 2.
    Like in the analysis of ETS, there was no significant effect of
    Tempo, but main effects of Condition and Note were observed. Unlike
    in the ETS analysis above, however, the interaction between Condition and
    Note remained non-significant. In other words, while there was a clear
    indication of the Skip condition bringing about longer saccades (Mdn =
    1.33 beats) than the Stepwise condition (Mdn = 1.21 beats), these saccades
    did not uniformly land on a given note in the bar. Nevertheless, the
    pattern of predicted values (Fig. 10) is reminiscent of that for the ETS
    (Fig. 9) in that group-level differences between the two conditions are
    already seen on notes preceding the final, “most complex” note. The
    saccadic results thus support the Distant Attraction Hypothesis, but only
    as a general complexity effect that might not be found exactly on the
    complex elements themselves.</p>

<fig id="fig10" fig-type="figure" position="float">
					<label>Fig 10.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>Predicted values of incoming saccade length (by
    Condition and Note) in the tempo of 100 bpm in Experiment 2. In the Skip
    condition, Note 4 was the target following the skip.</p>
					</caption>
					<graphic id="graph10" xlink:href="jemr-11-02-c-figure-10.png"/>
				</fig>

<fig id="fig11" fig-type="figure" position="float">
					<label>Fig 11.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>The relationship between incoming saccade
    length and ETS (with histograms for both variables) at the tempo of 100
    bpm in Experiment 2.</p>
					</caption>
					<graphic id="graph11" xlink:href="jemr-11-02-c-figure-11.png"/>
				</fig>


    <p>As in Exp. 1, we may also take a look
    at the relationship between ETS and the length of incoming
    saccades, pooling all participants and conditions together for this
    analysis. According to Spearman rank correlations, there was a positive
    correlation between ETS and incoming saccade length both in the tempo of
    60 bpm (<italic>&#x3C1;</italic>[1,033]= 0.458, <italic>p</italic> &#x3C; .001), and at 100
    bpm (<italic>&#x3C1;</italic>[977]= 0.370, <italic>p</italic> &#x3C; .001). As exemplified in
    Fig. 11 for the higher tempo, the bulk of the first fixations have been
    approached through 1–2-beat saccades, resulting in an ETS of roughly 2–4
    beats. However, longer ETS measurements tend to correspond to slightly
    longer incoming saccades.</p>
    </sec>
	
    <sec id="S3e">
      <title>Discussion of Experiment 2</title>

    <p>In relation to the first study reported above,
    Experiment 2 was designed to intensify the visual salience and
    music-structural complexity of the target notes appearing amidst diatonic,
    stepwise melodies. This was done in order to learn whether increasing the
    complexity of the target notes would also intensify the attraction
    effects. In addition, we worked only with highly experienced music
    readers. Again, the results supported both the Early Attraction Hypothesis
    and the Distant Attraction Hypothesis, although not directly at the “most
    complex” note. By interspersing our stepwise melodies with skips of a
    sixth that landed on chromatically altered notes (involving an accidental
    sign # or b), we did elicit a local increase in the ETSs, but not at the
    target notes themselves. Rather, there was a note-specific increase in the
    ETS for notes preceding the target element by 1–3 beats. Furthermore,
    incoming saccade length was found to increase for the Skip bars as a
    whole, but the effect could not be localized at any particular note in the
    bar—which again shows that the effect was already present even three notes
    before the “complex” target. </p>

    <p>A reasonable interpretation would be that the
    addition of accidentals made the target notes visually more salient,
    causing them to be perceived earlier within the parafoveal region. This
    would attract a fixation toward the target symbol, often undershooting the
    target itself. Supposing that the perceptual span would render the target
    visible from such a landing site (see above), we may further speculate
    that the target might already be partially processed from this location.
    Such an assumption cannot be further evaluated with the present data, but
    it would help explain why there were no attraction effects for the target
    note itself. Indeed, decoding upcoming notes from the perceptual span is a
    possibility that makes it uncertain whether “undershooting” the target can
    at all be understood as an unsuccessful attempt to hit the target. With
    the possibility to use the perceptual span, the experienced music reader
    might simply tend to avoid excessive forward saccades to stay in tempo. In
    the face of a potentially difficult target, a slightly lengthened saccade
    toward it might suffice to give the extra processing time
    needed.</p>

    <p>Overall, we learn from this experiment that experienced
    musicians may, indeed, react quite sensitively to upcoming deviant
    elements. While our target notes were always on the last beat of a 4/4
    bar, they nevertheless generated longer-than-average spans to notes
    located some beats before the target itself. This implies that the sight
    readers may often have initially reacted to the target element when the
    metrical time was running as much as six beats (i.e., 1.5 bars) from the
    target. The reaction might then involve a quick adjustment of the span
    process by a longer-than-average forward saccade that might not always
    reach the salient target itself.</p>
    </sec>
    </sec>
	
    <sec id="S4">
      <title>General discussion</title>

    <p>While reading and playing music from a notated
    score, musicians typically direct their eyes somewhat ahead of the notes
    currently performed. Though several prior studies have examined this
    phenomenon of “looking ahead,” the part the musical score itself plays in
    influencing the visual processing has been under-examined (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b28">28</xref>). In
    this article, we have addressed the possibility of stimulus-driven local
    adjustments to the span of looking ahead, suggesting that even small
    increases in musical complexity might catch the reader’s eyes from farther
    away than would be the case with simpler material. This Early Attraction
    Hypothesis requires a new approach to span measurement. Instead of
    previous measures of the Eye-Hand Span, we argue that local
    stimulus-driven effects can better be approached via a construct called
    the Eye-Time Span (ETS), resulting from a Backward Projective Approach to
    span measurement. </p>

    <p>The ETS minimally involves two basic features. The
    first of these is that the reader’s first fixation to a target, at the
    “front end” of the span, will be adopted as the point of departure for the
    measurement. In comparison to what we have called the Forward Projective
    Approach—starting at the “back end” of the span—ours has the advantage of
    being directly oriented toward the musical targets of interest in the
    score. The other basic feature of the ETS is that the measurements are not
    taken from the fixation to the “hand” of the performer, but rather to a
    location in metrical time. In comparison to another previous approach,
    here called the Single-Item Lag Approach—that measures the temporal
    distance between fixating a note and playing it—the ETS thus has the
    advantage of being independent of the musical performer’s interpretive
    choices and performance failures. In our Backward Projective Approach to
    span measurement, the location of a fixation in the score can be thought
    to correspond to a point in the metrical scheme, allowing us to calculate
    its distance from another such point—namely, from where the metrical time
    was running at the occurrence of the fixation (see Figs. 1 and 2). In
    measuring such a distance, we are admittedly relying on an idealized view
    of the musical score as a one-to-one map of the musical meter, but with
    appropriately designed stimuli, this strategy allows a more precise grasp
    of fine, stimulus-driven span adjustments made during the reading process.
    (The idealization could be relaxed by assigning metrical positions to
    fixations locally, adjusting conversions from graphical to metrical
    distance according to the relative widths of bars, or, say, according to
    the relative distances of first notes appearing on successive beats.) In
    principle, the ETS could be used as a general measure to be assigned to
    each fixation, even without indexing the fixations to notational symbols.
    As our interest was in the musician’s quick reactions to melodic events at
    the very first encounter, however, we applied it only to first fixations
    falling on individual AOIs.</p>

    <p>In this first fixation oriented paradigm, we
    sought to address the question of whether and how changes in the relative
    complexity of notated musical stimuli would affect the sight-readers’
    looking-ahead behavior when they are supposed to perform at a regulated
    tempo. Inspired by the idea of spatial attraction to irregular symbols
    presented in the parafovea (in text reading: see (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b9">9</xref>)), we suggested that in
    temporally controlled music reading, relatively complex upcoming symbols
    (or symbol relationships) might not only attract next fixations in a
    spatial sense, but also in a temporal sense—by precipitating the forward
    saccade. In other words, we supposed that even if simple sight-reading may
    otherwise proceed by a rather regular succession of saccades from one note
    to another (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15 b55">15, 55</xref>), slightly more complex notated elements or
    relationships might attract fixations relatively early during the process.
    This Early Attraction Hypothesis was derived from two simple observations:
    In music reading, the musical meter and tempo limit the total processing
    time available, but notated passages may vary in their difficulty for the
    reader. Supposing that more complex notated events require a larger share
    of the limited processing time available, a music reader would do well to
    cultivate quick sensitivity to any upcoming difficulties. While the Early
    Attraction Hypothesis as such can be tested using the ETS measure, we also
    noted that the precise interpretation of any such effects would
    additionally require the analysis of the length of incoming saccades
    involved. In particular, we further supposed that the early eye-movement
    reactions to upcoming complexities would take place by relatively long
    forward saccades toward the difficult elements “popping out” of the
    parafovea. This was called the Distant Attraction Hypothesis. Neither
    Early Attraction nor Distant Attraction has previously been empirically
    reported in studies of music reading. For comparison, it can be noted
    that, while Distant Attraction has not been attested in text reading (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b9">9</xref>), 
	Early Attraction would be akin to the
    “magnet account” that Hyönä and Bertram (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b14">14</xref>) use to account
    for so-called inverted parafoveal-on-foveal effects that have been
    reported in some reading studies (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b19">19</xref>). 
	If the idea of Early Attraction to parafoveally observed difficulties feels “counterintuitive”
    in linguistic contexts (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b14">14</xref>), p. 124, it gains a whole
    new relevance in the context of temporally constrained music, as explained in the
    introduction.</p>

    <p>We reported two experiments in which amateur (Exp.
    1) and professional musicians (Exps. 1, 2) sight-read simple, diatonic
    melodies in stepwise melodic conditions and in slightly more demanding
    ones containing skips. For the latter, the melodies were interspersed with
    larger melodic skips of a fourth or a fifth (Exp. 1), or intervals of a
    sixth with an accidental (#, b) on the note following the skip (Exp. 2).
    It was supposed that identifying the note after the skip would require
    relatively more processing time, and that it would also be visually more
    salient than the other notes. Two relaxed tempi (60 bpm and 100 bpm) were
    used in both studies, and both the ETS as well as incoming saccades were
    analyzed for notes surrounding the skips in errorless keyboard
    performances.</p>

    <p>Our main results were in line with both the Early
    Attraction Hypothesis and the Distant Attraction Hypothesis. As regards
    Early Attraction, measurements of ETS in both experiments showed a
    significant interaction of melodic Condition and melody Note, suggesting
    that the addition of melodic skips locally increased the amount of looking
    ahead just as we had supposed. In Exp. 1, the local increase in ETS most
    clearly appeared on the notes after the melodic skip where it had been
    expected. In one of the conditions, we also observed heightened values on
    the note preceding the skip. The latter effect seemed to take over in Exp.
    2, in which the music-structural complexity of the skip, as well as the
    visual saliency of the note following the skip, had been intensified.
    Here, the ETS was seen to increase on the three notes preceding the skip.
    In order to interpret these effects, we evaluated the Distant Attraction
    Hypothesis by examining the lengths of incoming saccades. In Exp. 1, we
    observed a significant Condition:Note interaction, also apparently due to
    an increase of incoming saccade lengths right after the skips. In Exp. 2,
    there was just a highly significant main effect of Condition, showing a
    lengthening of incoming saccades in the Skip condition, but suggesting,
    again, that the increase already occurred for several notes preceding the
    skip. In both of the experiments (and at both of the tempi), we further
    observed significant positive correlations between the measurements of ETS
    and incoming saccade length. </p>

    <p>In sum, then, we see that (1) the appearance of
    even slight melodic complexities in the score may locally increase the
    amount of looking ahead in sight reading, and that (2) local increases of
    looking ahead have a lot to do with using extended saccades—both in
    general, as well as specifically in the case of responding to melodic
    complexities. As noted, however, with the somewhat longer and more
    realistic melodic stimuli of Exp. 2 (also involving visually more salient
    and musically more complex targets), the looking-ahead and saccade effects
    already occurred on the notes preceding the targets themselves. Such a
    phenomenon could be interpreted as a saccadic range error (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b44">44</xref>) in which saccades, shot to the parafovea
    for quickly “checking out” upcoming difficulties, may undershoot their
    targets (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b17">17</xref>). However, leaving it at that might be to misrepresent the
    situation in which not only the upcoming target, but all of the notes in
    between have to be taken care of in the performance. A safer
    interpretation would be that upcoming, salient difficulties simply tend to
    increase saccade length and thus expedite the scanning process as a whole.
    Instead of necessarily aiming to “hit the target,” the reader, observing
    an upcoming irregularity or difficulty, will simply tend to proceed faster
    toward it. As noted in the introduction, a perceptual span extending 2–4
    beats to the right from a fixation (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b32 b34 b45">32, 34, 45</xref>) might allow the reader
    to register the target even from a prior position. However, no such
    supposition is required to make sense of the basic idea that precipitating
    the whole process by one or more longer saccades may help the reader get
    faster to the parafoveally observed irregularities. While the present data
    cannot reveal the extent to which the sight-reading performances would
    fail in the absence of such saccadic precautionary measures, it is notable
    that in our data set, these phenomena were observed as a mark of
    successful (i.e. errorless) sight-reading performances by highly
    experienced music readers.</p>

    <p>These results may now be compared to ones from two
    previous studies in which the effects of relative music-structural
    complexity on the Eye-Hand Span have been addressed in temporally
    controlled performances. First, in a simple children’s song context,
    Penttinen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b4">4</xref>) observed that musicians’ Eye-Hand Spans, when
    measured at beat onsets (as “Eye-Beat Spans”), were shorter for beats
    involving eighth notes than for beats involving quarter notes. Second,
    Rosemann et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b33">33</xref>) had pianists perform the accompaniment score to a
    Bach flute sonata, and found that bars rated by the authors as “difficult”
    received a shorter Eye-Hand Span than was the case for bars rated as
    “easy.” Both of these studies thus suggested that musical complexity would
    reduce the spans, instead of increasing them. The reason for this, of
    course, is that both of the studies applied Forward Projective measures:
    Longer spans were reported for “difficult” areas, but these were spans
    originating from—and not targeting—the areas in question (see also (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b33">33</xref>),
    supplementary material). In both of these previous studies, the reduced
    spans measured at complex areas may reflect the fact that the reader has
    spent more time on these events than on others, and hence the scanning of
    the next events, after the complex ones, has been delayed. These would be
    just after effects of complexity, and not effects of spotting the
    complexities in the first place. When spans are grouped by their point of
    origin and not by their targets, the whole measurement process may fail to
    show what we take to be the most important relationship between musical
    complexity and looking ahead—namely, the way in which upcoming
    complexities instigate early oculomotor responses.</p>

    <p>Even if the ETS thus seems a more adequate
    tool than previous Eye-Hand Span measures to record local, stimulus-driven
    changes in the musician’s spans, the present results also suggest that it
    should not be taken as a direct measure of element salience. This is
    because even if visually salient and/or musically complex symbols yield a
    local increase in ETS, the longer spans might not be targeted exactly at
    the elements of interest. By the same token, the most immediate complexity
    effects of a given score area cannot be found by the Single-Item Lag
    approach either. The fixation data that represents the most immediate
    reaction to a given note symbol might not at all be located right at that
    symbol. Answering questions concerning stimulus-driven effects on looking
    ahead thus requires taking into account the first fixations to a broader
    visual area extending backward in the score from the actual elements of
    interest. What this implies is that future studies of eye movements in
    music reading should strive to understand phenomena such as looking ahead
    in terms of broader models of the sight-reading process.</p>

    <p>In one of the rare models explicitly proposed for saccadic control in
    music reading, Kinsler and Carpenter (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b55">55</xref>) overlooked the possibility that
    stimulus features such as points of relative complexity might affect
    saccadic programming. Instead, they supposed that a neurally encoded image
    of local notational symbols is “scanned internally by a processor which
    also triggers the saccadic controller when there is no more material that
    can be processed” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b55">55</xref>), p. 1456. Accordingly, the authors suggested that
    saccades “[i] are not initiated at times that are particularly significant
    from the point of view of the music and its performance, [ii] nor are they
    directed consistently in relation to visual elements on the page” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b55">55</xref>), p.
    1454. There is reason to doubt Kinsler and Carpenter’s view, however, as
    their model was based on rather informal observations concerning simple
    rhythmic tapping tasks (with only four experimental participants,
    apparently including themselves), and their notated stimuli did not
    involve any particular symbols that could have saliently popped out from
    the parafovea due to their intrinsic or relational complexity. In light of
    the present results, Kinsler and Carpenter’s claims grossly overstate the
    fact that neither the individual launch times nor the precise landing
    positions for saccades can be deterministically predicted from the notated
    stimulus. Even granting flexibility in the individual saccadic processes,
    we have seen that in relation to the course of metrical
    time, (i) saccades tend to be initiated earlier in response to
    upcoming complex symbols (or symbol relationships), and that (ii) such
    saccades are drawn closer to the symbols in question. These phenomena of
    Early Attraction and Distant Attraction seem to take place within
    flexible, individually variable saccadic processes which nevertheless—on a
    group level—respond in largely predictable ways to slight changes of
    structural complexity in the musical notation. In this sense, at least,
    music reading is much more a “genuine species of music perception” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b46">46</xref>), p.
    235, than Kinsler and Carpenter’s model would have it. Crafting a more
    appropriate model of saccadic control in sight reading lies beyond the
    scope of this article, but we think we have been able to show that such a
    model would have to take into account both the temporal restrictions
    placed on music reading as well as the bottom-up influence of the notated
    stimulus on the reading process.</p>

    <p>Our study shows some shortcomings that could be taken into account in
    planning future research. On the technical side, while the eye-tracking
    and stimulus presentation were synchronized by the eye-tracker, and while
    our approach allowed disregarding the performer’s actions on the keyboard
    (beyond a separate check for correctness), we still had to synchronize the
    eye-tracking data with the external metronome (provided by the sequencer
    software recording the performance). Here, we relied on identifying beat
    onsets through a set of reference points given by the experimenter’s
    actions, as she had changed the screen images on the eye-tracker in sync
    with the heard metronome. Even if the experimenter could time her actions
    with the metronome (see above), the procedure represents a source of
    potential error which could be obviated by the use of automated procedures
    in future work. Nevertheless, the variability in the researcher’s actions
    was measured to be on the scale of some milliseconds, while the significant effects found for the ETS, for
    instance, were large enough (typically hundreds of milliseconds) to not be
    significantly affected by it.</p>

    <p>Another, more theoretical issue that would merit
    further attention in future work has to do with the notion of musical
    complexity governing our stimulus design. Two different aspects are
    relevant to mention here. First, it should be clear that we have only used
    the notion of complexity as a heuristic way of approaching what is a much
    more intricate music-theoretical and music-psychological issue. Even our
    simple melodies involved an interplay of two very different kinds of
    sources for melodic complexity: chromaticism (i.e. departure from diatonic
    scales by way of using accidentals), and interval size. Furthermore, in
    both cases, there might be several possibilities for defining complexity.
    Our account has been in terms of expected processing load. Hence, we
    suggested that larger melodic intervals involve greater cognitive
    difficulties than smaller stepwise ones which might be more easily decoded
    as up/down commands on an underlying learned scale. One might also argue
    for the greater difficulty of larger intervals on the basis of their
    smaller frequency in melodic corpora (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b56">56</xref>). The problem,
    however, is that musical pitch is a multidimensional phenomenon and that
    non-stepwise intervals, too, might be deemed structurally simple, as is
    the case for fourths and fifths which not only can be used as generators
    to produce the whole Western tone system (in the so-called circle of
    fifths), but also emerge in tonal perception as cognitively stable
    relationships (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b57">57</xref>). In this light, any music-structural complexity
    attached to these intervals in our Experiment 1 would not be about
    inherent structural complexity of the relationships themselves, but due to
    the increase in local melodic variability and—to repeat our previous
    point—a greater need to identify the following note as such.</p>

    <p>As regards the topic of early attraction, an even
    more crucial aspect concerning music-structural complexity is the close
    association between such complexity and visual salience in written music.
    The roots of this association are in the very system of musical notation
    itself which can represent simple diatonic (e.g., major or minor) melodies
    without accidental symbols, whereas more complex chromatic pitch
    structures would also require such added visual markings. In future
    studies, more attention could be paid to this aspect—for instance, by
    involving conditions in which simple diatonic melodies are written with
    accidentals, so as to visually assimilate them with less familiar
    music-structural materials (cf. 1). Indeed, magnetic attraction is less
    puzzling in our study than in text reading just because of the visual
    salience aspect involved, and thus it might be of interest to see if our
    results can be extended to contexts where the relative visual salience of
    musically complex events is attenuated. Our guess would be that they
    cannot be so extended. Musical common sense suggests explaining our
    present results by the musicians’ learned skills of navigating in
    well-notated scores in which simple things are notated in visually simple
    ways, if possible, and where visually salient features tend to signal
    musical complexities, as well. In this light, the phenomenon of early
    attraction in music reading would be first and foremost a matter of
    reacting to visually salient cues regarding locations of potential musical
    interest or challenge.</p>

    <p>In this article, we have shown that the music
    reader’s extent of looking ahead of metrical time can be sensitive to
    local variations in musical structure on a note-to-note level. In closing,
    it is relevant to emphasize that despite advances in measuring the
    phenomenon, the amount of looking ahead probably cannot be determined
    solely on the basis of stimulus properties. This is because early
    attraction, as noted above, may be based on a useful habit of reacting to
    any salient points of interest—whether or not the extra time thereby
    gained will actually be needed or not. Indeed, the temporal buffer
    obtained by looking ahead may be used for any and all of the purposes that
    the reader might need. While our present methods do not allow an analysis
    of how much of the temporal buffer is used for decoding the upcoming
    symbol and how much of it goes to preparing for motor execution, this is
    most likely to vary between individuals according to their
    music-theoretical knowledge and instrument-specific skills. Moreover, in
    real music-reading contexts, the temporal buffer provided by looking ahead
    can be used for practical purposes that we have not even touched upon,
    such as collecting information from written expressive markings, managing
    page turns, or glancing for synchronizing cues from fellow musicians or a
    conductor, and more. In this sense, the phenomenon of early attraction
    presents just one—although an important—aspect of looking ahead in music
    reading.</p>
	
    <sec id="S4a" sec-type="COI-statement">
      <title>Ethics and Conflict of Interest</title>

    <p>The authors declare that the contents of the article are in agreement
    with the ethics described in 
	<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://biblio.unibe.ch/portale/elibrary/BOP/jemr/ethics.html" xlink:show="new">http://biblio.unibe.ch/portale/elibrary/BOP/jemr/ethics.html</ext-link>
    and that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of
    this paper.</p>
    </sec>
	
    <sec id="S4b">
      <title>cknowledgements</title>

    <p>This research was supported by the grant 275929 from the Academy of
    Finland, and by the Turku Institute for Advanced Studies. We wish to thank
    Lauren Fink, Jukka Hyönä, Elke B. Lange, Jochen Laubrock, Antti Penttinen,
    and two anonymous reviewers for critical comments, Nina Loimusalo and
    Markku Pöyhönen for assistance, Irmeli Matilainen for eyes and hands, as
    well as the participants of the two studies for their time and effort.</p>
    </sec>
    </sec>

  </body>

<back>
<ref-list>
<ref id="b31"><mixed-citation publication-type="book-chapter" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Adachi</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Takiuchi</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Shoda</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2012</year>). <chapter-title>Effects of melodic structure and meter on the sight-reading performances of beginners and advanced pianists</chapter-title>. In <person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><given-names>E.</given-names> <surname>Cambouropoulos</surname></name>, <name><given-names>C.</given-names> <surname>Tsougras</surname></name>, <name><given-names>P.</given-names> <surname>Mavromatis</surname></name>, &#x26; <name><given-names>C.</given-names> <surname>Pastiadis</surname></name> (<role>Eds.</role>),</person-group> <source>Proceedings of the 12<sup>th</sup> International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition and the 8<sup>th</sup> Triennial Conference of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music</source> [<comment>Internet</comment>]. (pp. <fpage>5</fpage>–<lpage>8</lpage>). <publisher-loc>Thessaloniki, Greece</publisher-loc>; Available from <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://icmpc-escom2012.web.auth.gr/files/papers/5_Proc.pdf">http://icmpc-escom2012.web.auth.gr/files/papers/5_Proc.pdf</ext-link>, <date-in-citation content-type="access-date">Accessed April 1, 2018</date-in-citation>.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b1"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ahken</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Comeau</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>H&#233;bert</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Balasubramaniam</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2012</year>). <article-title>Eye movement patterns during the processing of musical and linguistic syntactic incongruities.</article-title> <source>Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain</source>, <volume>22</volume>(<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>18</fpage>&#8211;<lpage>25</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1037/a0026751</pub-id><issn>0275-3987</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b45"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Burman</surname>, <given-names>D. D.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Booth</surname>, <given-names>J. R.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2009</year>). <article-title>Music rehearsal increases the perceptual span for notation.</article-title> <source>Music Perception</source>, <volume>26</volume>(<issue>4</issue>), <fpage>303</fpage>&#8211;<lpage>320</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1525/mp.2009.26.4.303</pub-id><issn>0730-7829</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b35"><mixed-citation publication-type="book" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Buswell</surname>, <given-names>G. T.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1920</year>). <source>An experimental study of the eye-voice span in reading. (Supplementary Educational Monographs, 17.)</source>. <publisher-loc>Chicago</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>The University of Chicago Libraries</publisher-name>.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b36"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Butsch</surname>, <given-names>R. L. C.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1932</year>). <article-title>Eye movements and the eye-hand span in typewriting.</article-title> <source>Journal of Educational Psychology</source>, <volume>23</volume>(<issue>2</issue>), <fpage>104</fpage>–<lpage>121</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1037/h0073463</pub-id><issn>0022-0663</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b41"><mixed-citation publication-type="book-chapter" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Clarke</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1995</year>). <chapter-title>Expression in performance: Generativity, perception and semiosis</chapter-title>. In <person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><given-names>J.</given-names> <surname>Rink</surname></name> (<role>Ed.</role>),</person-group> <source>The practice of performance: Studies in musical interpretation</source> (pp. <fpage>21</fpage>&#8211;<lpage>54</lpage>). <publisher-loc>Cambridge, New York, Melbourne</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1017/CBO9780511552366.003</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b47"><mixed-citation publication-type="book" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Diggle</surname>, <given-names>P. J.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Heagerty</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Liang</surname>, <given-names>K. L.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Zeger</surname>, <given-names>S. L.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>). <source>Analysis of Longitudinal Data</source> (<edition>2nd ed.</edition>). <publisher-loc>Oxford</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b17"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Drieghe</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Rayner</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Pollatsek</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2008</year>). <article-title>Mislocated fixations can account for parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements during reading.</article-title> <source>Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology</source>, <volume>61</volume>(<issue>8</issue>), <fpage>1239</fpage>–<lpage>1249</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/17470210701467953</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17853202</pub-id><issn>1747-0218</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b7"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Findlay</surname>, <given-names>J. M.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Walker</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>). <article-title>A model of saccade generation based on parallel processing and competitive inhibition.</article-title> <source>Behavioral and Brain Sciences</source>, <volume>22</volume>(<issue>4</issue>), <fpage>661</fpage>&#8211;<lpage>674</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1017/S0140525X99002150</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11301526</pub-id><issn>0140-525X</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b29"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Furneaux</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Land</surname>, <given-names>M. F.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>). <article-title>The effects of skill on the eye-hand span during musical sight-reading.</article-title> <source>Proceedings. Biological Sciences</source>, <volume>266</volume>(<issue>1436</issue>), <fpage>2435</fpage>–<lpage>2440</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1098/rspb.1999.0943</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">10643087</pub-id><issn>0962-8452</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b34"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Gilman</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Underwood</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>). <article-title>Restricting the field of view to investigate the perceptual span of pianists.</article-title> <source>Visual Cognition</source>, <volume>10</volume>(<issue>2</issue>), <fpage>201</fpage>–<lpage>232</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/713756679</pub-id><issn>1350-6285</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b3"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Goolsby</surname>, <given-names>T. W.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1994a</year>). <article-title>Eye movement in music reading: Effects of reading ability, notational complexity, and encounters.</article-title> <source>Music Perception</source>, <volume>12</volume>(<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>77</fpage>&#8211;<lpage>96</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2307/40285756</pub-id><issn>0730-7829</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b43"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Goolsby</surname>, <given-names>T. W.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1994b</year>). <article-title>Profiles of processing: Eye movements during sightreading.</article-title> <source>Music Perception</source>, <volume>12</volume>(<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>96</fpage>–<lpage>123</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2307/40285757</pub-id><issn>0730-7829</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b5"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hadley</surname>, <given-names>L. V.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Sturt</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Eerola</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Pickering</surname>, <given-names>M. J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2018</year>). <article-title>Incremental comprehension of pitch relationships in written music: Evidence from eye movements.</article-title> <source>Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology</source>, <volume>71</volume>(<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>211</fpage>&#8211;<lpage>219</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/17470218.2017.1307861</pub-id><issn>1747-0218</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b40"><mixed-citation publication-type="book" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Holmqvist</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Nystr&#246;m</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Andersson</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Dewhurst</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Jarodzka</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2015</year>). <source>Van de Weijer J. Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures</source>. <publisher-loc>Oxford</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b50"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>H&#248;jsgaard</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Halekoh</surname>, <given-names>U.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Yan</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>). <article-title>The R package geepack for generalized estimating equations.</article-title> <source>Journal of Statistical Software</source>, <volume>15</volume>(<issue>2</issue>), <fpage>1</fpage>&#8211;<lpage>11</lpage>.<issn>1548-7660</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b56"><mixed-citation publication-type="book" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Huron</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>). <source>Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation</source>. <publisher-loc>Cambridge (MA), London</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>The MIT Press</publisher-name>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.7551/mitpress/6575.001.0001</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b10"><mixed-citation publication-type="other" specific-use="unparsed"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hyönä</surname> <given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> Eye movements during reading and discourse processing. (Tech. Rep. No. 65.) Turku: University of Turku; <year>1993</year>.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b9"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hyönä</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1995</year>). <article-title>Do irregular letter combinations attract readers’ attention? Evidence from fixation locations in words.</article-title> <source>Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance</source>, <volume>21</volume>(<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>68</fpage>–<lpage>81</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1037/0096-1523.21.1.68</pub-id><issn>0096-1523</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b8"><mixed-citation publication-type="book-chapter" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hyönä</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2011</year>). <chapter-title>Foveal and parafoveal processing during reading</chapter-title>. In <person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><given-names>S. P.</given-names> <surname>Liversedge</surname></name>, <name><given-names>I.</given-names> <surname>Gilchrist</surname></name>, &#x26; <name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Everling</surname></name> (<role>Eds.</role>),</person-group> <source>The Oxford handbook of eye movements</source> (pp. <fpage>819</fpage>&#8211;<lpage>838</lpage>). <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b14"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hyönä</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Bertram</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>). <article-title>Do frequency characteristics of nonfixated words influence the processing of fixated words during reading?</article-title> <source>The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology</source>, <volume>16</volume>(<issue>1-2</issue>), <fpage>104</fpage>–<lpage>127</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/09541440340000132</pub-id><issn>0954-1446</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b16"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Inhoff</surname>, <given-names>A. W.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Starr</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Shindler</surname>, <given-names>K. L.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>). <article-title>Is the processing of words during eye fixations in reading strictly serial?</article-title> <source>Perception &#x26; Psychophysics</source>, <volume>62</volume>(<issue>7</issue>), <fpage>1474</fpage>–<lpage>1484</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3758/BF03212147</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11143457</pub-id><issn>0031-5117</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b19"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kennedy</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Pynte</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>). <article-title>Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading.</article-title> <source>Vision Research</source>, <volume>45</volume>(<issue>2</issue>), <fpage>153</fpage>–<lpage>168</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.visres.2004.07.037</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15581917</pub-id><issn>0042-6989</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b21"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kennedy</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Pynte</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Ducrot</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>). <article-title>Parafoveal-on-foveal interactions in word recognition.</article-title> <source>The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology</source>, <volume>55</volume>(<issue>4</issue>), <fpage>1307</fpage>–<lpage>1337</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/02724980244000071</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">12420997</pub-id><issn>0272-4987</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b55"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kinsler</surname>, <given-names>V.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Carpenter</surname>, <given-names>R. H. S.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1995</year>). <article-title>Saccadic eye movements while reading music.</article-title> <source>Vision Research</source>, <volume>35</volume>(<issue>10</issue>), <fpage>1447</fpage>&#8211;<lpage>1458</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/0042-6989(95)98724-N</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">7645273</pub-id><issn>0042-6989</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b24"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kopiez</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Lee</surname>, <given-names>J. I.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>). <article-title>Towards a dynamic model of skills involved in sight reading music.</article-title> <source>Music Education Research</source>, <volume>8</volume>(<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>97</fpage>–<lpage>120</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/14613800600570785</pub-id><issn>1461-3808</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b57"><mixed-citation publication-type="book" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Krumhansl</surname>, <given-names>C. L.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1990</year>). <source>Cognitive foundations of musical pitch</source>. <publisher-loc>New York, Oxford</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b42"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Laubrock</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Kliegl</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2015</year>). <article-title>The eye-voice span during reading aloud.</article-title> <source>Frontiers in Psychology</source>, <volume>6</volume>(<issue>1432</issue>), <fpage>1432</fpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">26441800</pub-id><issn>1664-1078</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b53"><mixed-citation publication-type="web-page" specific-use="unparsed"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lenth</surname> <given-names>R.</given-names></name></person-group> emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.1. <year>2018</year> [<date-in-citation content-type="access-date">cited 2018 Apr 1</date-in-citation>]. Available from: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans">https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b25"><mixed-citation publication-type="book" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lerdahl</surname>, <given-names>F.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Jackendoff</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1983</year>). <source>A generative theory of tonal music</source>. <publisher-loc>Cambridge (MA), London</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>The MIT Press</publisher-name>.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b22"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Li</surname>, <given-names>X.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Bicknell</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Liu</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Wei</surname>, <given-names>W.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Rayner</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2014</year>). <article-title>Reading is fundamentally similar across disparate writing systems: A systematic characterization of how words and characters influence eye movements in Chinese reading.</article-title> <source>Journal of Experimental Psychology. General</source>, <volume>143</volume>(<issue>2</issue>), <fpage>895</fpage>–<lpage>913</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1037/a0033580</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23834023</pub-id><issn>0096-3445</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b48"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Liang</surname>, <given-names>K. L.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Zeger</surname>, <given-names>S. L.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1986</year>). <article-title>Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models.</article-title> <source>Biometrika</source>, <volume>73</volume>(<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>13</fpage>&#8211;<lpage>22</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/biomet/73.1.13</pub-id><issn>0006-3444</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b23"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Liu</surname>, <given-names>Y.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Reichle</surname>, <given-names>E. D.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Li</surname>, <given-names>X.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2016</year>). <article-title>The effect of word frequency and parafoveal preview on saccade length during the reading of Chinese.</article-title> <source>Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance</source>, <volume>42</volume>(<issue>7</issue>), <fpage>1008</fpage>–<lpage>1025</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1037/xhp0000190</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27045319</pub-id><issn>0096-1523</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b28"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Madell</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Hébert</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2008</year>). <article-title>Eye movements and music reading: Where do we look next?</article-title> <source>Music Perception</source>, <volume>26</volume>(<issue>2</issue>), <fpage>157</fpage>–<lpage>170</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1525/mp.2008.26.2.157</pub-id><issn>0730-7829</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b44"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>McConkie</surname>, <given-names>G. W.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Kerr</surname>, <given-names>P. W.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Reddix</surname>, <given-names>M. D.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Zola</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1988</year>). <article-title>Eye movement control during reading: I. The location of initial eye fixations on words.</article-title> <source>Vision Research</source>, <volume>28</volume>(<issue>10</issue>), <fpage>1107</fpage>&#8211;<lpage>1118</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/0042-6989(88)90137-X</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">3257013</pub-id><issn>0042-6989</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b54"><mixed-citation publication-type="book" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Narmour</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1990</year>). <source>The analysis and cognition of basic melodic structures: The implication-realization model</source>. <publisher-loc>Chicago, London</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>The University of Chicago Press</publisher-name>.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b15"><mixed-citation publication-type="book-chapter" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Penttinen</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Huovinen</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2009</year>). <chapter-title>The effects of melodic grouping and meter on eye movements during simple sight-reading tasks</chapter-title>. In <person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><given-names>J.</given-names> <surname>Louhivuori</surname></name>, <name><given-names>T.</given-names> <surname>Eerola</surname></name>, <name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Saarikallio</surname></name>, <name><given-names>T.</given-names> <surname>Himberg</surname></name>, &#x26; <name><given-names>P. S.</given-names> <surname>Eerola</surname></name> (<role>Eds.</role>),</person-group> <source>Proceedings of the 7th Triennial Conference of European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music (ESCOM 2009)</source> [<comment>Internet</comment>]. (pp. <fpage>416</fpage>–<lpage>424</lpage>). <publisher-loc>Jyväskylä</publisher-loc>; Available from <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/handle/123456789/20910">https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/handle/123456789/20910</ext-link>, <date-in-citation content-type="access-date">Accessed April 1, 2018</date-in-citation>.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b2"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Penttinen</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Huovinen</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2011</year>). <article-title>The early development of sight-reading skills in adulthood: A study of eye movements.</article-title> <source>Journal of Research in Music Education</source>, <volume>59</volume>(<issue>2</issue>), <fpage>196</fpage>–<lpage>220</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0022429411405339</pub-id><issn>0022-4294</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b4"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Penttinen</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Huovinen</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Ylitalo</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2015</year>). <article-title>Reading ahead: Adult music students’ eye movements in temporally controlled performances of a children’s song.</article-title> <source>International Journal of Music Education</source>, <volume>33</volume>(<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>36</fpage>–<lpage>50</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0255761413515813</pub-id><issn>0255-7614</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b49"><mixed-citation publication-type="web-page" specific-use="unparsed"><person-group person-group-type="author"><collab>R Core Team R</collab></person-group>: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; <year>2013</year> [<date-in-citation content-type="access-date">cited 2018 Apr 1</date-in-citation>].Available from: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.R-project.org/">http://www.R-project.org/</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b20"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Risse</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Kliegl</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2014</year>). <article-title>Dissociating preview validity and preview difficulty in parafoveal processing of word n + 1 during reading.</article-title> <source>Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance</source>, <volume>40</volume>(<issue>2</issue>), <fpage>653</fpage>–<lpage>668</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1037/a0034997</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24294870</pub-id><issn>0096-1523</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b33"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Rosemann</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Altenmüller</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Fahle</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2016</year>). <article-title>The art of sight-reading: Influence of practice, playing tempo, complexity and cognitive skills on the eye-hand span in pianists.</article-title> <source>Psychology of Music</source>, <volume>44</volume>(<issue>4</issue>), <fpage>658</fpage>–<lpage>673</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0305735615585398</pub-id><issn>0305-7356</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b6"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Schotter</surname>, <given-names>E. R.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Angele</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Rayner</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2012</year>). <article-title>Parafoveal processing in reading.</article-title> <source>Attention, Perception &#x26; Psychophysics</source>, <volume>74</volume>(<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>5</fpage>&#8211;<lpage>35</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3758/s13414-011-0219-2</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22042596</pub-id><issn>1943-3921</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b38"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sloboda</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1974</year>). <article-title>The eye-hand span—An approach to the study of sight reading.</article-title> <source>Psychology of Music</source>, <volume>2</volume>(<issue>4</issue>), <fpage>4</fpage>–<lpage>10</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/030573567422001</pub-id><issn>0305-7356</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b39"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sloboda</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1977</year>). <article-title>Phrase units as determinants of visual processing in music reading.</article-title> <source>British Journal of Psychology</source>, <volume>68</volume>(<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>117</fpage>–<lpage>124</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.2044-8295.1977.tb01566.x</pub-id><issn>0007-1269</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b46"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sloboda</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1984</year>). <article-title>Experimental studies of music reading: A review.</article-title> <source>Music Perception</source>, <volume>2</volume>(<issue>2</issue>), <fpage>222</fpage>&#8211;<lpage>236</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2307/40285292</pub-id><issn>0730-7829</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b32"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Truitt</surname>, <given-names>F. E.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Clifton</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Pollatsek</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Rayner</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>). <article-title>The perceptual span and the eye-hand span in sight-reading music.</article-title> <source>Visual Cognition</source>, <volume>4</volume>(<issue>2</issue>), <fpage>143</fpage>–<lpage>161</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/713756756</pub-id><issn>1350-6285</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b26"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Underwood</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Foulsham</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>). <article-title>Visual saliency and semantic incongruency influence eye movements when inspecting pictures.</article-title> <source>Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology</source>, <volume>59</volume>(<issue>11</issue>), <fpage>1931</fpage>–<lpage>1949</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/17470210500416342</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16987782</pub-id><issn>1747-0218</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b27"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Underwood</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Foulsham</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>van Loon</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Humphreys</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Bloyce</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>). <article-title>Eye movements during scene inspection: A test of the saliency map hypothesis.</article-title> <source>The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology</source>, <volume>18</volume>(<issue>3</issue>), <fpage>321</fpage>–<lpage>342</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/09541440500236661</pub-id><issn>0954-1446</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b37"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Weaver</surname>, <given-names>H. E.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1943</year>). <article-title>A survey of visual processes in reading differently constructed musical selections.</article-title> <source>Psychological Monographs</source>, <volume>55</volume>(<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>1</fpage>–<lpage>30</lpage>.<issn>0096-9753</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b18"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>White</surname>, <given-names>S. J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2008</year>). <article-title>Eye movement control during reading: Effects of word frequency and orthographic familiarity.</article-title> <source>Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance</source>, <volume>34</volume>(<issue>1</issue>), <fpage>205</fpage>–<lpage>223</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1037/0096-1523.34.1.205</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18248149</pub-id><issn>0096-1523</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b11"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>White</surname>, <given-names>S. J.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Liversedge</surname>, <given-names>S. P.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>). <article-title>Orthographic familiarity influences initial eye fixation positions in reading.</article-title> <source>The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology</source>, <volume>16</volume>(<issue>1-2</issue>), <fpage>52</fpage>–<lpage>78</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/09541440340000204</pub-id><issn>0954-1446</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b12"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>White</surname>, <given-names>S. J.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Liversedge</surname>, <given-names>S. P.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2006a</year>). <article-title>Foveal processing difficulty does not modulate non-foveal orthographic influences on fixation positions.</article-title> <source>Vision Research</source>, <volume>46</volume>(<issue>3</issue>), <fpage>426</fpage>–<lpage>437</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.visres.2005.07.006</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16111733</pub-id><issn>0042-6989</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b13"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>White</surname>, <given-names>S. J.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Liversedge</surname>, <given-names>S. P.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2006b</year>). <article-title>Linguistic and nonlinguistic influences on the eyes’ landing positions during reading.</article-title> <source>Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology</source>, <volume>59</volume>(<issue>4</issue>), <fpage>760</fpage>–<lpage>782</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/02724980543000024</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16707361</pub-id><issn>1747-0218</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b30"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wurtz</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></name>, <name><surname>Müeri</surname>, <given-names>R. M.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Wiesendanger</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2009</year>). <article-title>Sight-reading of violinists: Eye movements anticipate the musical flow.</article-title> <source>Experimental Brain Research</source>, <volume>194</volume>(<issue>3</issue>), <fpage>445</fpage>–<lpage>450</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s00221-009-1719-3</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19205680</pub-id><issn>0014-4819</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b51"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Yan</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></name>, &#x26; <name><surname>Fine</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>). <article-title>Estimating equations for association structures.</article-title> <source>Statistics in Medicine</source>, <volume>23</volume>(<issue>6</issue>), <fpage>859</fpage>&#8211;<lpage>874</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/sim.1650</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15027075</pub-id><issn>0277-6715</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="b52"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" specific-use="restruct"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Yan</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>). <article-title>geepack: Yet another package for generalized estimating equations</article-title> <comment>[Internet]</comment>. <source>R News</source>, <volume>2</volume>(<issue>3</issue>), <fpage>12</fpage>–<lpage>14</lpage>. Retrieved from <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/Rnews_2002-3.pdf">https://cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/Rnews_2002-3.pdf</ext-link> <date-in-citation content-type="access-date">Accessed April 1, 2018</date-in-citation><issn>1609-3631</issn></mixed-citation></ref>
</ref-list>

<app-group>
	<app>
	
      <title>Appendix</title>	  

<table-wrap id="t03" position="float">
					<label>Appendix 1.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>Parameter estimates (in beats)
          for Eye-Time Span, Experiment 1.</p>
					</caption>
					<table frame="hsides" rules="groups" cellpadding="3">
						<thead>					
        <tr>
          <td></td>

          <td>Estimate</td>

          <td>Std.err</td>

          <td>Wald</td>

          <td>Pr(&#x3E;|W|)</td>
        </tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>						
        <tr>
          <td>(Intercept)</td>

          <td> 0.5429</td>

          <td>0.0296</td>

          <td>337.512</td>

          <td>&#x3C; .001 ***</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>expertisePM</td>

          <td>-0.0813</td>

          <td>0.0298 </td>

          <td>7.464</td>

          <td>.006 ** </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>tempo100</td>

          <td>-0.0597</td>

          <td>0.0127</td>

          <td>22.170</td>

          <td>&#x3C; .001 *** </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionB</td>

          <td>-0.0029</td>

          <td>0.0131</td>

          <td>0.048</td>

          <td>.827</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionM</td>

          <td> 0.0106 </td>

          <td>0.0125</td>

          <td>0.719</td>

          <td>.396</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>note4bar2</td>

          <td> 0.0268</td>

          <td>0.0145</td>

          <td>3.417</td>

          <td>.065</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>note1bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0120</td>

          <td>0.0190</td>

          <td>0.397</td>

          <td>.529</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>note2bar3</td>

          <td> 0.0055</td>

          <td>0.0155</td>

          <td>0.123 </td>

          <td>.726 </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>note3bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0010 </td>

          <td>0.0213</td>

          <td>0.002 </td>

          <td>.963 </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>note4bar3</td>

          <td> 0.0267 </td>

          <td>0.0239</td>

          <td>1.256 </td>

          <td>.263</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionB:note4bar2</td>

          <td>-0.0481</td>

          <td>0.0144</td>

          <td>11.222</td>

          <td>&#x3C;.001 ***</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionM:note4bar2</td>

          <td>-0.0127</td>

          <td>0.0157</td>

          <td>0.655</td>

          <td>.418</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionB:note1bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0229</td>

          <td>0.0185</td>

          <td>1.528</td>

          <td>.216</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionM:note1bar3</td>

          <td> 0.0098</td>

          <td>0.0227</td>

          <td>0.186</td>

          <td>.666</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionB:note2bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0036</td>

          <td>0.0200</td>

          <td>0.032</td>

          <td>.859</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionM:note2bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0351 </td>

          <td>0.0177</td>

          <td>3.916</td>

          <td>.048 *</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionB:note3bar3</td>

          <td> 0.0058 </td>

          <td>0.0271</td>

          <td>0.046</td>

          <td>.831</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionM:note3bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0596 </td>

          <td>0.0218</td>

          <td>7.480</td>

          <td>.006 **</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionB:note4bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0098 </td>

          <td>0.0297</td>

          <td>0.109</td>

          <td>.741</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionM:note4bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0817 </td>

          <td>0.0319</td>

          <td>6.552</td>

          <td>.010 *</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td colspan="5"></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>Estimated Scale Parameters:</td>

          <td>Estimate</td>

          <td colspan="3">Std.err</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="right">(Intercept) </td>

          <td>0.165 </td>

          <td colspan="3">0.0201</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td colspan="5"></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>Estimated Correlation Parameters:</td>

          <td>Estimate</td>

          <td colspan="3">Std.err</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="right">alpha</td>

          <td>0.259 </td>

          <td colspan="3">0.0488</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td colspan="5"></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td colspan="5">Number of clusters: 37 Maximum cluster
          size: 70</td>
        </tr>

						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="FN3">
						<p><italic>Signif. codes</italic>: * <italic>p</italic> &#x3C; .05;
          ** <italic>p</italic> &#x3C; .01; *** <italic>p</italic> &#x3C;
          .001.<italic>Abbreviations</italic>: expertisePM =
          Performance major group, tempo100 = tempo 100 bpm, conditionB = Bar
          line condition, conditionM = Mid-bar condition, note4bar2 = note 4
          of bar 2, note1bar3 = note 1 of bar 3.
          <italic>Reference level used</italic>: Education major
          group, tempo 60 bpm, Stepwise-condition, note 3 of bar
          2.</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
					
<table-wrap id="t04" position="float">
					<label>Appendix 2.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>Parameter estimates (in beats) for
          Incoming Saccade Length, Experiment 1.</p>
					</caption>
					<table frame="hsides" rules="groups" cellpadding="3">
						<thead>
        <tr>
          <td></td>

          <td>Estimate</td>

          <td>Std.err</td>

          <td>Wald</td>

          <td>Pr(&#x3E;|W|)</td>
        </tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>						
        <tr>
          <td>(Intercept)</td>

          <td> 0.9283</td>

          <td>0.0343</td>

          <td>732.686</td>

          <td>&#x3C; .001 ***</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>expertisePM</td>

          <td>-0.0847 </td>

          <td>0.0299</td>

          <td>8.031</td>

          <td>.005 **</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>tempo100</td>

          <td>-0.0006 </td>

          <td>0.0218</td>

          <td>0.001</td>

          <td>.980</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionB</td>

          <td>-0.0095 </td>

          <td>0.0365</td>

          <td>0.067</td>

          <td>.796</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionM</td>

          <td> 0.0197 </td>

          <td>0.0396</td>

          <td>0.246</td>

          <td>.620</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>note4bar2</td>

          <td> 0.0704</td>

          <td>0.0458 </td>

          <td>2.359</td>

          <td>.125</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>note1bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0290 </td>

          <td>0.0336</td>

          <td>0.745</td>

          <td>.388</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>note2bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0291 </td>

          <td>0.0606</td>

          <td>0.231</td>

          <td>.631</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>note3bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0595 </td>

          <td>0.0547</td>

          <td>1.184</td>

          <td>.277</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>note4bar3</td>

          <td> 0.0398 </td>

          <td>0.0660</td>

          <td>0.364</td>

          <td>.546</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionB:note4bar2</td>

          <td>-0.0319</td>

          <td>0.0629</td>

          <td>0.257</td>

          <td>.612</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionM:note4bar2</td>

          <td>-0.0135 </td>

          <td>0.0660</td>

          <td>0.042</td>

          <td>.838</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionB:note1bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0704 </td>

          <td>0.0389</td>

          <td>3.279</td>

          <td>.070</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionM:note1bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0278 </td>

          <td>0.0386</td>

          <td>0.519</td>

          <td>.471</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionB:note2bar3</td>

          <td> 0.0472</td>

          <td>0.0831</td>

          <td>0.323</td>

          <td>.570</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionM:note2bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0616 </td>

          <td>0.0642</td>

          <td>0.920</td>

          <td>.337</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionB:note3bar3</td>

          <td> 0.0645 </td>

          <td>0.0637</td>

          <td>1.026</td>

          <td>.311</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionM:note3bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0390 </td>

          <td>0.0702</td>

          <td>0.309</td>

          <td>.578</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionB:note4bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0219</td>

          <td>0.0755</td>

          <td>0.084</td>

          <td>.772</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionM:note4bar3</td>

          <td>-0.0927 </td>

          <td>0.0924</td>

          <td>1.006</td>

          <td>.316</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td colspan="5"></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>Estimated Scale Parameters:</td>

          <td>Estimate</td>

          <td colspan="3">Std.err</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="right">(Intercept) </td>

          <td>0.224 </td>

          <td colspan="3">0.0300</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td colspan="5"></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>Estimated Correlation Parameters:</td>

          <td>Estimate</td>

          <td colspan="3">Std.err</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="right">alpha</td>

          <td>0.0226 </td>

          <td colspan="3">0.0095</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td colspan="5"></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td colspan="5">Number of clusters: 37 Maximum cluster
          size: 48</td>
        </tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="FN4">
						<p><italic>Signif. codes</italic>: * <italic>p</italic> &#x3C; .05;
          ** <italic>p</italic> &#x3C; .01; *** <italic>p</italic> &#x3C; .001<italic>. Abbreviations</italic>:
          as in Appendix 1. <italic>Reference level used</italic>: as in Appendix
          1.</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>

<table-wrap id="t05" position="float">
					<label>Appendix 3.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>Parameter estimates (in beats)
          for Eye-Time Span, Experiment 2.</p>
					</caption>
					<table frame="hsides" rules="groups" cellpadding="3">
						<thead>
        <tr>
          <td></td>

          <td>Estimate</td>

          <td>Std.err</td>

          <td>Wald</td>

          <td>Pr(&#x3E;|W|)</td>
        </tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
        <tr>
          <td>(Intercept)</td>

          <td> 0.3822</td>

          <td>0.0177</td>

          <td>463.840</td>

          <td>&#x3C; .001 ***</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>tempo100</td>

          <td>-0.0113</td>

          <td>0.0109 </td>

          <td>1.085 </td>

          <td>.298 </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionSkip</td>

          <td>-0.0532 </td>

          <td>0.0083 </td>

          <td>41.076 </td>

          <td>&#x3C; .001 *** </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>note2</td>

          <td>-0.0147</td>

          <td>0.0113 </td>

          <td>1.698 </td>

          <td>.193 </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>note3</td>

          <td>-0.0125 </td>

          <td>0.0076 </td>

          <td>2.697 </td>

          <td>.101 </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>note4</td>

          <td>-0.0185 </td>

          <td>0.0133 </td>

          <td>1.924 </td>

          <td>.165</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionSkip:note2</td>

          <td>-0.0116</td>

          <td>0.0115 </td>

          <td>1.021 </td>

          <td>.312 </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionSkip:note3</td>

          <td>-0.0008</td>

          <td>0.0143 </td>

          <td>0.003 </td>

          <td>.956 </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionSkip:note4</td>

          <td> 0.0451 </td>

          <td>0.0176 </td>

          <td>6.592 </td>

          <td>.010 * </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td colspan="5"></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>Estimated Scale Parameters:</td>

          <td>Estimate</td>

          <td colspan="3">Std.err</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="right">(Intercept) </td>

          <td>0.1912 </td>

          <td colspan="3">0.0382</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td colspan="5"></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>Estimated Correlation Parameters:</td>

          <td>Estimate</td>

          <td colspan="3">Std.err</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="right">alpha</td>

          <td>0.1573 </td>

          <td colspan="3">0.0636</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td colspan="5"></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td colspan="5">Number of clusters: 14 Maximum cluster
          size: 160</td>
        </tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="FN5">
						<p><italic>Signif. codes</italic>: * <italic>p</italic> &#x3C;
          .05; ** <italic>p</italic> &#x3C; .01; *** <italic>p</italic> &#x3C;
          .001.<italic>Abbreviations</italic>: tempo100 = tempo
          100 bpm, conditionSkip = Skip condition, note2 = note 2 of the
          target bar.<italic>Reference level used</italic>: tempo
          60 bpm, Stepwise-condition, note 1 of the target
          bar.</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>	

<table-wrap id="t06" position="float">
					<label>Appendix 4.</label>
					<caption>
						<p>Parameter estimates (in beats) for
          Incoming Saccade Length, Experiment 2</p>
					</caption>
					<table frame="hsides" rules="groups" cellpadding="3">
						<thead>
        <tr>
          <td></td>

          <td>Estimate</td>

          <td>Std.err</td>

          <td>Wald</td>

          <td>Pr(&#x3E;|W|)</td>
        </tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
        <tr>
          <td>(Intercept)</td>

          <td> 0.6862</td>

          <td>0.0238</td>

          <td>832.17</td>

          <td>&#x3C; .001 ***</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>tempo100</td>

          <td> 0.0224</td>

          <td>0.0180 </td>

          <td>1.56 </td>

          <td>.212 </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionSkip</td>

          <td>-0.0566 </td>

          <td>0.0129 </td>

          <td>19.14 </td>

          <td>&#x3C; .001 *** </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>note2</td>

          <td> 0.0619</td>

          <td>0.0280 </td>

          <td>4.90 </td>

          <td>.027 * </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>note3</td>

          <td> 0.1074 </td>

          <td>0.0241 </td>

          <td>19.80 </td>

          <td>&#x3C; .001 *** </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>note4</td>

          <td> 0.0541 </td>

          <td>0.0419 </td>

          <td>1.67 </td>

          <td>.197</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionSkip:note2</td>

          <td>-0.0620</td>

          <td>0.0312 </td>

          <td>3.95 </td>

          <td>.047 * </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionSkip:note3</td>

          <td>-0.0202</td>

          <td>0.0314 </td>

          <td>0.41 </td>

          <td>.521 </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>conditionSkip:note4</td>

          <td> 0.0512 </td>

          <td>0.0536 </td>

          <td>0.91 </td>

          <td>.340 </td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td colspan="5"></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>Estimated Scale Parameters:</td>

          <td>Estimate</td>

          <td colspan="3">Std.err</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="right">(Intercept) </td>

          <td>0.1970 </td>

          <td colspan="3">0.0265</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td colspan="5"></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td>Estimated Correlation Parameters:</td>

          <td>Estimate</td>

          <td colspan="3">Std.err</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td align="right">alpha</td>

          <td>0.0543 </td>

          <td colspan="3">0.0168</td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td colspan="5"></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td colspan="5">Number of clusters: 14 Maximum cluster
          size: 160</td>
        </tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="FN6">
						<p><italic>Signif. codes</italic>: * <italic>p</italic> &#x3C; .05;
          ** <italic>p</italic> &#x3C; .01; *** <italic>p</italic> &#x3C; .001. <italic>Abbreviations</italic>
          as in Appendix 3. <italic>Reference level used</italic>: as in Appendix
          3.</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>					
	  

							

	</app>
</app-group>
</back>
</article>