International Symposium on Performance Science

ISBN 978-94-90306-02-1

The Author 2011, Published by the AEC

All rights reserved

Thinking about performance:

Memory, attention, and practice
Roger Chaffin
Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, USA

Performers must trust their memories to work reliably under the pressures of the concert stage. So, the performance must be thoroughly
automatic. At the same time, it must be fresh and spontaneous in order
to communicate emotionally with the audience. To learn how musicians
resolve this dilemma, I have conducted longitudinal case studies of concert soloists preparing for performance. Our studies track memory development through practice to public performance and beyond. Like expert
memorists in other domains, experienced musicians use highly practiced
retrieval schemes. The retrieval organization provides a mental map of
the piece that tells the performer what comes nexta series of landmarks, hierarchically organized by the sections and subsections of the
music. The musician attends to these performance cues (PCs) in order to
ensure that the performance unfolds as planned. PCs are established by
thinking about particular features of the music during practice so that
they later come to mind automatically. PCs help the musician to monitor
the unfolding performance and adjust its rapid, automatic motor sequences to the needs of the moment.
Keywords: memory; attention; practice; performance cues; spontaneity

Performers are faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, performances in the
Western art music tradition are usually highly prepared, but mindlessly relying on the automaticity of well-practiced motor sequences, is both risky and
unlikely to produce an aesthetically satisfying performance (Chaffin et al.
2006, 2007; Ericsson 2002). On the other hand, thinking too closely about a
highly practiced skill is a sure way to disrupt it (Beilock and Carr 2001). Experienced performers resolve this dilemma by training themselves during
practice to attend to specific features of the music. These performance cues
(PCs) come to mind automatically during the performance, providing a series

690

WWW.PERFORMANCESCIENCE.ORG

of landmarks that the performer can use to monitor progress through the
piece and direct attention as neededto technical issues, interpretation, or
expressive gestures. PCs provide the performer with a safety net that allows
recovery if something goes wrong and provide points of flexibility at which
the performer can introduce spontaneous variation into a highly prepared
performance.
MAIN CONTRIBUTION
Experts in any domain memorize with a facility that often seems superhuman
(Gobet and Simon 1996). Musicians are no exception. Their biographies are
full of tales of amazing memory feats, such as the story of the young Mozart
writing out Allegris Miserere from memory (Cooke 1999) or Jorge Bolets
memorization of Liszts Mephisto Waltz in 75 minutes (Noyle 1987). These
feats of memory can be explained in terms of three principles: meaningful
encoding of novel material, use of a retrieval organization, and extended
practice in its use (Ericsson and Kintsch 1995).
It is not obvious that principles of expert memory, which were derived
from studies of memory for chess boards, digit strings, and dinner orders,
would apply to music performance. Motor and auditory memory, that play a
central role in performance, are minimally involved in these other, very different fields. Despite the differences, the principles do apply (Chaffin et al.
2002, Chaffin and Logan 2006, Krampe and Ericsson 1996). First, experts
knowledge of their domain of expertise allows them to encode new information in terms of ready-made chunks already stored in memory (Miller 1956,
Tulving 1962). For a musician, these include familiar patterns like chords,
scales, and arpeggios, whose practice forms an important part of every musicians training (Halpern and Bower 1982). Second, experts develop a retrieval
scheme that provides access to the chunks of information in long-term memory (Ericsson and Oliver 1989). For a musician, the formal structure of the
music provides a convenient, ready-made organization (Chaffin and Imreh
2002, Williamon and Valentine 2002). Third, prolonged practice is required
to bring the speed and reliability of memory retrieval up to the point that it
becomes useful (Ericsson and Kintsch 1995). For musicians, this means that
extended practice is necessary for memory retrieval to operate reliably at
performance speeds.
Some musicians appear to disagree with this last claim. In published interviews, many performers describe memorization as very simple (Walter
Gesiking), a subconscious process (Harold Bauer), that just happens
(Andre-Michel Schub), like breathing (Jorge Bolet). Others, in contrast,

INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON PERFORMANCE SCIENCE

691

compare the terror of forgetting (Janina Fialkowska) to torturesof the

inquisition (Anton Rubenstein), suggesting that every performeralways
thinks about the possibility of memory slips[and] has to work at memorizing (John Browning; all citations from Chaffin et al. 2002, Chapter 3).
These disagreements reflect the fact that performance normally involves
two different kinds of memory, at least for experienced musicians. Serial
chaining develops automatically, without deliberate effort, during practice,
providing a type of implicit, procedural memory that is remarkably accurate
(Chaffin et al. 2009, Rubin 2006). However, relying on serial chaining is
problematic. First, it can only be accessed by playing the piece. The uncertainty of whether the memory will be there when needed on stage is a source
of anxiety for many performers. Second, if something does go wrong in performance, the serial chain can only be restarted by going back to the beginning. This unfortunate staple of student recitals is something that more
experienced performers generally manage to avoid.
Experienced performers provide themselves with a safety net. Content
addressable access allows a musician to start at different points in a piece
(e.g. 2nd return of the main theme). This provides a way to recover if something goes wrong. Establishing the necessary retrieval cues is easy enough.
Just think of a location and start playing. Do this a few times and the thought
becomes a retrieval cue, eliciting memory for the music. This kind of retrieval
works well enough in ordinary conversation. In music performance, however,
retrieval has to keep pace with the pulse of the music. Getting retrieval up to
speed is what makes memorization such hard, slow work. As pianist Gabriela
Imreh put it in talking about learning the Italian Concerto (Presto) by J.S.
Bach: My fingers were playing the notes just fine. The practice I needed was
in my head. I had to learn to keep track of where I was. It was a matter of
learning exactly what I needed to be thinking of as I played, and at exactly
what point (Chaffin et al. 2002, p. 224). She was talking about performance cues (PCs).
PCs are landmarks in the mental map of a piece that an experienced musician maintains in working memory during performance. Because they can
be accessed both by serial cuing and directly, by address, they provide a
backup if serial cuing breaks down. By carefully preparing PCs, soloists are
able to reliably perform challenging works from memory on the concert stage.
By repeatedly paying attention to PCs during practice, the musician ensures
that they become an integral part of the performance, coming to mind effortlessly as the music unfolds. The performer remains mindful of these aspects
of the performance while allowing other aspects to be executed automatically.
When things go smoothly, PCs are a source of spontaneity and variation in

692

WWW.PERFORMANCESCIENCE.ORG

highly polished performance (Chaffin et al. 2007). When things go wrong,

they provide places at which the soloist can recover and go on.
PCs point to different types of memory according to which aspect of the
music they address. Structural cues are critical places in the formal structure,
such as section boundaries. Expressive cues represent musical feelings (e.g.
excitement). Interpretive cues refer to musical gestures, such as changes of
tempo or dynamics. Basic cues point to motor memory for critical details of
technique (e.g. a fingering that sets the hand up for what follows). Musicians
are likely to agree on the musical structure of a piece. They are likely to differ
about other cues, those that are more specific to the performer or instrument.
For example, basic PCs for a cellist include decisions about intonation are not
relevant for a pianist. For ensemble work, shared PCs may also be needed to
coordinate with the other musicians (Ginsborg et al. 2006, Ginsborg and
Chaffin 2011).
With musician colleagues, I have examined the development of PCs in a
series of longitudinal case studies of concert soloists preparing for performance. During practice, musicians constantly make decisions about technique,
interpretation, and performance. The behavioral record of starts and stops
provides a window into the cognitive processes involved. Figure 1 shows
practice data from a study in which an experienced cello soloist learned the
Prelude from Bachs Suite No. 6, for cello solo, BWV 1012 (Chaffin et al. 2010,
Lisboa et al. in press). The figure shows a 1.5-hour practice session during
which the cellist polished the piece for a public performance. The graph reads
from bottom to top. Each horizontal line represents the uninterrupted playing
(practice segments) of the corresponding half-bars shown on the horizontal
axis. The vertical lines represent the locations of the main section boundaries
(darker) and the interpretive PCs (lighter) that the cellist reported. The graph
shows that the cellist worked through the piece in sections, starting at the
end. The session concludes with an uninterrupted performance of the entire
piece, represented by the horizontal line at the top of the graph. The many
places where vertical lines intersect with starts and ends of horizontal lines
are occasions on which playing started or stopped at a PC. This is how PCs are
created, by establishing automatic links between thought and action. Data of
this sort have allowed us to track the development of PCs across practice sessions.
Music practice provides a rich source of information about many aspects
of expertise that are of interest to psychologists and of value to musicians.
The changes in a musicians goals that take place as learning progresses are
reflected in where playing starts and stops (e.g. Chaffin et al. 2002, see
Chapters 8-9). Experienced performers start out by forming a musical im-

INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON PERFORMANCE SCIENCE

693

Figure 1. Practice in session 58 showing location of section boundaries (dark vertical

lines) and interpretive PCs (pale vertical lines; reproduced from Lisboa et al. in press).
(See full color version at www.performancescience.org.)

age of a new piece, before working on technical issues (Chaffin et al. 2003,
Lisboa et al. in press, Neuhaus 1973). Strategic alternation between sectionby-section and integrative practice is reflected in the varying length of practice segments, both within and across sessions (Chaffin et al. 2002, 2010;
Miklaszewski 1989; Williamon et al. 2002). Level of concentration is reflected
in time spent in micro-pauses, as the musician makes decisions while playing
(Chaffin and Lemieux 2004, p. 25; Chaffin 2007). Large scale body movements, not strictly necessary for note production, reflect the musicians mental organization of the music (Ginsborg 2009).
PCs guide playing during performance, as well as in practice. We can see
their influence in the fluctuations of tempo and dynamics that reflect a performers musical interpretation and style. Figure 2 shows the mean half-barto-half-bar tempo of 27 polished performances of the Prelude by the cellist
whose practice of the same piece is shown in Figure 1. There were dips in
tempo at places where the cellist reported expressive PCs. A factor analysis of
the performances yielded two factors, which we identified, on the basis of
external evidence, as more versus less relaxed/expressive performances (Figure 2 shows the factor scores). The momentary decreases in tempo at expressive PCs were more pronounced in the more expressive performances (Lisboa
et al. 2007). The cellist modulated the size of her musical gestures, making
them larger in some performances and smaller in others. This suggests that
the PCs may have provided her with points of control where her automatic

694

WWW.PERFORMANCESCIENCE.ORG

Factor 1: Expressive performances

Factor 2: Tense/Non-expressive performances

Figure 2. Normalized tempo (per half-bar) for more expressive/relaxed (Factor 1, top
panel) and less expressive/relaxed (Factor 2, bottom panel) performances, with vertical
lines showing the location of expressive PCs (reproduced from Lisboa et al. 2007).

motor sequences could be modified from one performance to another

(Chaffin et al. 2007).
If PCs function as retrieval cues, then their effects should be reflected in
recall. Figure 3 shows mean probability of correct recall of bars before and
after expressive features (including expressive PCs). The data are from a
study in which a singer wrote out the score of the first Ricercar from
Stravinskys Cantata six times over a period of five years after performing the
piece (Ginsborg and Chaffin 2009). The figure shows a sharp increase in accuracy in bars containing expressive features (located at serial position [SP]
=0). This serial position effect suggests that the singer had direct, content
addressable access to her memory for the piece at these locations. The stepwise decrease in successive bars before and after SP=0 suggests that their
recall was a product of serial cuing. Recall declined because at each link in the
associative chain, there was a non-zero probability that retrieval of the next
link in the chain would fail. Content addressable access at expressive features
provided renewed access to the associative chain, resulting in the sharp increase in recall observed at SP=0.

INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON PERFORMANCE SCIENCE

695

Recall Probability

1.2

0.9

0.6

0.3

0.0
-5

-3

-1

SP from Expressive Feature

Figure 3. Accuracy of recall as a function of serial position (SP) of bars before and after
expressive features (at SP=0). Red line shows fit of model to data (Ginsborg and Chaffin
2009). (See full color version at www.performancescience.org.)

In other studies, we have examined the potential role of PCs in recovering

from disruptions to performance. We cued musicians to start playing in the
middle of a piece that they had memorized by playing them brief passages cut
from recordings of their own performances. The tests were conducted
months, and in some cases, years, after the musicians had last performed the
works. The musicians were instructed to continue playing when the auditory
cue stopped, trying to make it sound as much as possible like an uninterrupted performance (Begosh et al. 2010). Responses were faster for cues that
ended at expressive PCs. These PCs provided the best content addressable
access to the musicians memory.
The musicians in these longitudinal studies were asked to talk to the camera about what they were doing during practice, whenever they felt able to do
so. They rarely mentioned PCs, and then only obliquely. The one exception
was pianist Gabriela Imreh, during her learning of Bachs Italian Concerto
(Presto). On three occasions, she went through the score, describing the map
of the piece in [my] mind[where I] focus on certain places (Chaffin et al.
2006, pp. 205-208). In session 12, after playing the piece through from memory for the first time, her description was exclusively about the musical
structure (e.g. thats the second time). In session 17, after the piece was
thoroughly memorized, she talked mostly about technique (e.g. the fingering
in bar 65, the left hand divided). In session 24, right before the first public
performance, she talked mostly about interpretation (e.g. In [bar] 77, Im
trying to bring out the Csand F in the left hand). The pianists descriptions
show how her PCs developed over the course of learning the piece.

696

WWW.PERFORMANCESCIENCE.ORG

The changes in the pianists descriptions of her PCs were also reflected in
changes in practice (Chaffin et al. 2006). The mapping of word and action is
not, however, generally one-to-one. Sometimes word and action are in
agreement; sometimes they are at odds. For example, in the early practice
sessions of the Prelude study, the cellist talked almost exclusively about technical issues (e.g. decisions about fingering and bowing; Lisboa et al. in press).
In later sessions, she talked increasingly about interpretation. Her practice,
however, showed the opposite pattern. She started and stopped more at interpretive features and PCs in early sessions and at more technical difficulties
in later sessions. The explanation is to be found in a single remark in practice
session 3, in among hundreds of comments about technique. The cellist
commented, I have to decide musically what I want, and then I can choose a
fingering. It is only in hindsight, and with the help of the practice record,
that we are able to see that this one, isolated remark provides the key to her
learning strategy.
IMPLICATIONS
The rapid starts and stops of musicians practice reflect their strategies and
goals. By itself, however, the behavioral record of practice is relatively uninformative. We need the first-person perspective of the musician (Chaffin and
Imreh 2001). Experienced musicians can provide detailed and insightful selfreports about their practice and memorization strategies (Hallam 1995). But
self-reports alone are not sufficient. Musicians must rely on intuition and are
not always aware of why they do things (Ericsson and Simon 1980). However,
when their reports are validated by the behavioral record of their practice and
performances, the objective record is illuminated by the musical understanding and insight of the performer. When approached in this way, practice
provides a valuable, natural laboratory for studying the development of the
complex skills required in performance.
Address for correspondence
Roger Chaffin, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, 406 Babbidge
Road, U-1020, Storrs, Connecticut 06269-1020, USA; Email: roger.chaffin@uconn.edu
References
Beilock S. L. and Carr T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130,
pp. 701-725.

INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON PERFORMANCE SCIENCE

697

Begosh K. T., Chaffin R., Silva L.C.B., and Lisboa T. (2010). Embodied effects on musicians memory of highly polished performances. Paper presented at the 11th International Society for Music Perception and Cognition, Seattle, WA.
Chaffin R. (2007). Learning Clair de Lune: Retrieval practice and expert memorization.
Music Perception, 24, pp. 377-393.
Chaffin R. and Imreh G. (2001). A comparison of practice and self-report as sources of
information about the goals of expert practice. Psychology of Music, 29, pp. 39-69.
Chaffin R. and Imreh G. (2002). Practicing perfection: Piano performance as expert
memory, Psychological Science, 13, pp. 342-349.
Chaffin R., Imreh G., and Crawford M. (2002). Practicing Perfection. Mahwah, New
Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chaffin R., Imreh G., Lemieux A. F., and Chen C. (2003). Seeing the big picture: Piano
practice as expert problem solving. Music Perception, 20, pp. 461-485.
Chaffin R., Lemieux A. F., and Chen C. (2006). Spontaneity and creativity in highly
practiced performance. In I. Delige and G. A. Wiggins (eds.), Musical Creativity
(pp. 200-218). London: Psychology Press.
Chaffin R., Lemieux A. F., and Chen C. (2007). Its different each time I play: Spontaneity in highly prepared musical performance. Music Perception, 24, pp. 455-472.
Chaffin R. and Lemieux A. (2004). General perspectives on achieving musical excellence. In A. Williamon (ed.). Musical Excellence (pp. 19-39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chaffin R. and Logan T. (2006). Practicing perfection: How concert soloists prepare for
performance. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2, pp. 113-130.
Chaffin R., Logan T. R., and Begosh, K. T. (2009). Performing from memory. In S.
Hallam, I. Cross, and M. Thaut (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Music Psychology (pp.
352-363). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chaffin R., Lisboa T., Logan T., and Begosh K. T. (2010). Preparing for memorized cello
performance: The role of performance cues. Psychology of Music, 38, pp. 3-30.
Cooke J. F. (1999). Great Pianists on Piano Playing. Toronto: Dover. (Originally published in 1913; expanded edition published 1917.)
Gobet F. and Simon H. A. (1996). The roles of recognition processes and look-ahead
search in time-constrained expert problem solving: Evidence from grand-masterlevel chess. Psychological Science, 7, pp. 52-55.
Ericsson K. A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights from
the study of expert performance. In M. Ferrari (ed.), The Pursuit of Excellence
Through Education (pp. 47-56). Mahwah, New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ericsson K. A. and Kintsch W. (1995). Long-term working memory, Psychological Review, 102, pp. 211-245.

698

WWW.PERFORMANCESCIENCE.ORG

Ericsson K. A. and Oliver W. L. (1989). A methodology for assessing the detailed structure of memory skills. In A. M. Colley and J. R. Beech (eds.), Acquisition and Performance of Cognitive Skills (pp. 193-215). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Ericsson K. A. and Simon H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis (revised ed.). Cambridge,
Massachusetts, USA: MIT Press.
Ginsborg J. (2009). Beating time: The role of kinaesthetic learning in the development
of mental representations for music. In A. Mornell (ed.), Art in Motion (pp. 121142). Vienna: Peter Lang.
Ginsborg J., Chaffin R., and Nicholson G. (2006). Shared performance cues in singing
and conducting: A content analysis of talk during practice. Psychology of Music, 34,
pp. 167-194.
Ginsborg G. and Chaffin R. (2009). Very long term memory for words and melody: An
expert singers written and sung recall over six year. In C. Stevens, B. Kruitof, K.
Buckley, and S. Fazio (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Music Communication Science (pp. 24-28). Sydney, Australia: HCSNet, University
of Western Sydney.
Ginsborg J. and Chaffin R. (2011). Performance cues in singing and conducting: Evidence from practice and recall. In I. Delige and J. Davidson (eds), Music and the
Mind (pp. 339-360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hallam S. (1995). Professional musicians approaches to the learning and interpretation
of music. Psychology of Music, 23, pp. 111-128.
Halpern A. R. and Bower G. H. (1982). Musical expertise and melodic structure in
memory for musical notation. American Journal of Psychology, 95, pp. 31-50.
Krampe R. T. and Ericsson K. A. (1996). Maintaining excellence: Deliberate practice and
elite performance in young and older pianists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 25, pp. 331-359.
Lisboa T., Chaffin R., Logan T., and Begosh K.T. (2007). Variability and automaticity in
highly practiced cello performance In A. Williamon and D. Coimbra (eds.), Proceedings of ISPS 2007 (pp 161-166). Utrecht, The Netherlands: European Association of
Conservatoires (AEC).
Lisboa T., Chaffin R., and Logan T. (in press). An account of deliberate practice:
Thoughts, behaviour and the self in learning Bachs Prelude 6 for cello solo. In A.
Cervino, C. Laws, M. Lettberg, and T. Lisboa (eds.), Practice of Practising. Leuven,
Belgium: Orpheus Research Centre in Music (ORCiM).
Miller G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our
capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, pp. 81-97.
Miklaszewski K. (1989). A case study of a pianist preparing a musical performance.
Psychology of Music, 17, pp. 95-109.
Neuhaus H. (1973). The Art of Piano Playing. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Noyle L. J. (1987). Pianists on Playing. Metuchen, New Jersey, USA: Scarecrow Press.

INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON PERFORMANCE SCIENCE

699

Rubin D. C. (2006). The basic-system model of episodic memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, pp. 277-311.
Tulving E. (1962). Subjective organization in free recall of unrelated words. Psychological Review, 69, pp. 344-354.
Williamon A. and Valentine E. (2002). The role of retrieval structures in memorizing
music. Cognitive Psychology, 44, pp. 1-32.
Williamon A., Valentine E., and Valentine J. (2002). Shifting the focus of attention
between levels of musical structure. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14,
pp. 493-520.