Accademia Musicale Studio Musica
International Conference on New Music Concepts
Inspired Education and
New Computer Science Generation
Proceeding Book
Vol. 7

Accademia Musicale Studio Musica
Michele Della Ventura
EditorCOPYRIGHT MATERIAL

Printed in Italy
First edition: March 2020
©2020 Accademia Musicale Studio Musica
www.studiomusicatreviso.it
Accademia Musicale Studio Musica – Treviso (Italy)
ISBN: 978-88-944350-3-0PrefaceThis volume of proceedings from the conference provides an opportunity for readers toengage with a selection of refereed papers that were presented during the International
Conference on New Music Concepts, Inspired Education and New Computer Science
Generation. The reader will sample here reports of research on topics ranging from adiverse set of disciplines, including mathematical models in music, computer science,learning and conceptual change; teaching strategies, e-learning and innovative learning,
neuroscience, engineering and machine learning.
This conference intended to provide a platform for those researchers in music, education,
computer science and educational technology to share experiences of effectively applying cutting-edge technologies to learning and to further spark brightening prospects. It
is hoped that the findings of each work presented at the conference have enlightened
relevant researchers or education practitioners to create more effective learning environments.
This year we received 57 papers from 19 countries worldwide. After a rigorous review
process, 24 paper were accepted for presentation or poster display at the conference,yelling an acceptance rate of 42%. All the submissions were reviewed on the basis of
their significance, novelty, technical quality, and practical impact.
The Conferece featured three keynote speakers: Prof. Giuditta Alessandrini (Universitàdegli Studi Roma TRE, Italy), Prof. Renee Timmers (The University of Sheffield, UK)
and Prof. Axel Roebel (IRCAM Paris, France).
I would like to thank the Organizing Committee for their efforts and time spent to ensure
the success of the conference. I would also like to express my gratitude to the program
Committee members for their timely and helpful reviews. Last but not least, I would liketo thank all the authors for they contribution in maintaining a high-quality conference
and I hope in your continued support in playing a significant role in the Innovative Technologies and Learning community in the future.

March 2020

Michele Della VenturaConference Chair
Michele Della Ventura, Accademia Musicale Studio Musica, Treviso, Italy

Keynote Speakers
Giuditta Alessandrini, Università degli Studi Roma TRE, Italy
Renee Timmers, The University of Sheffield, UK
Axel Roebel, IRCAM Paris, France

International Scientific Committee
Patricia Alessandrini, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK
Jioanne Armitage, University of Leeds, UK
Suzanne Aspden, Faculty of Music, University of Oxford, UK
Jean-Julien Aucouturier, IRCAM, Paris, France
Per Bloland, Miami University, Ohio, USA
Jeffrey Boehm, Bath Spa University, UK
David Carabias Galindo, University of Segovia, Spain
Marko Ciciliani, University for Music and Performing Arts Vienna, Austria
Sally Jo Cunningham,University of Waikato, New Zealand
Ching-Hua Chuan, University of North Florida, U.S.A.
Darryl N. Davis, University of Hull, UK
Marlo De Lara, University of Leeds, UK
Elga Dorner, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary
Simon Emmerson, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
Travis Garrison, University of Central Missouri, USA
Inés María Monreal Guerrero, University of Valladolid, Spain
Duncan Williams, University of Plymouth, UK
Andrew Hankinson, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, UK
Joseph Hyde, Bath SPA University, UK
Wladyslaw Homenda, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
Orestis Karamanlis, Bournemouth University, UK
Alexandros Kontogeorgakopoulos, Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK
Steven Jan, University of Huddersfield, UK
Tae Hong Park, New York University Steinhardt, USA
Rudolf Rabenstein, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
Silvia Rosani, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK
Robert Rowe, New York University, USA
Nikos Stavropoulos, Leeds Beckett University, UK
Jacob David Sudol, Florida International University, U.S.A.
Eva Zangerle, University of Innsbruck, Austria

Contents

New Music Concepts
Analyzing relationships between color, emotion and music using Bayes’ rulein Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier Book I …………………………………….

10

Renee Timmers

Evaluation of Convolutional Neural Network and Four Typical Classification
Techniques for Music Genres Classification …………………………………

22

Conditional Modelling of Musical Bars with Convolutional Variational
Autoencoder ….……………………………………………………………….

33

Hayder K. Fatlawi, Attila Kiss

A. Oudad, H. Saito

Intelligent Automation of Secondary Melody Music Generation

……………

40

Nermin Naguib J. Siphocly, El-Sayed M. El-Horbaty, Abdel-Badeeh M. Salem

A Multidimensional Model of Music Tension………………………………..

47

Computational assistance leads to increased outcome diversity in a melodic
harmonisation task …………………………………………………………….

61

Aozhi Liu, Zhaohua Zhu, Zifeng Cai*, Zongyang Xie, Yaqi Mei, and Jing Xiao

Asterios Zacharakis, Maximos Kaliakatsos-Papakostas, Stamatia Kalaitzidou andEmilios Cambouropoulos

A Study on the Rug Patterns and Morton Feldman’s Approach……………..

68

Automatic Identification of Melody Tracks of Piano Sonatas using a Random
Forest Classifier ……………………………………………………………….

76

A.A. Javadi and M. Fujieda

Po-Chun Wang, Alvin W. Y. Su

Detection of Local Boundaries of Music Scores with BLSTM by using
Algorithmically Generated Labeled Training Data of GTTM Rules …………
You-Cheng Xiao, Alvin Wen-Yu Su

86

Computer Science
Music and the Brain: Composing with Electroencephalogram
Rachel Horrell

3-Dimensional Motif Modeling for Music Composition
Shigeki Sagayama, Hitomi Kaneko.………………

98…………………….

104

Transferring Information Between Connected Horizontal and Vertical
Interactive Surfaces …………………………………………………………...

116

Hand Occlusion Management Method for Tabletop Work Support Systems
Using a Projector ……………………………………………………………..

123

Risa Otsuki, Kaori Fujinami

Saki Shibayama, Kaori Fujinami

A mobile robot percussionist…………………………………………………

138

Maxence Blond, Andrew Vardy, Andrew Staniland

Learning Tools, Leraning Technologies, Learning Practices
Educational Design of Music and Technology Programs……………………

150

Sounds and Arts in Transversal Learning: Dialogic Spaces for Virtualand Real Encounters in Time ………………………………………………….

167

Susan Lewis

Kaarina Marjanen, Hubert Gruber, Markus Cslovjecsek, and Sabine Chatelain

Contextual Model Centered Higher Education Course and Research
Project in the Cloud ……………………………………………………………

186

László Horváth

How to Teach Problematic Students in Indonesian Vocational High Schools:
Empirical Studies in West Java Province ……………………………………..

198

Education through Music Analysis and Mathematics: Chopinesque Melodic
Structures in Étude Op. 25 No. 2 ………………………………………………

209

A. Sundoro, G. Jian Jun

Nikita Mamedov

Supporting Music Performance in Secondary School Ensembles throughMusic Arrangement ……………………………………………………………

218

Jihong Cai, Nikita Mamedov

Culture and Music
Relation between Swara and Animal/Bird Calls: An Analysis……………….

226

The War of the Beatmakers: How non-drummers redefined the functionof drums in popular music ……………………………………………………..

234

Haritha Bendapudi, Dr. T.K. Saroja

Poster presentation
Tom Pierard

______
Computer Science______

97

Transferring Information Between Connected Horizontal
and Vertical Interactive Surfaces
Risa Otsuki and Kaori Fujinami
Department of Computer and Information Sciences,
Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Koganei, Tokyo, Japans181385s@st.go.tuat.ac.jp, fujinami@cc.tuat.ac.jp

Abstract. Typical desktop workspace can be broadly divided into horizontal andvertical areas, and some applications are suitable for each area. However, a common problem is the fact that in the desktop space that handles digital information,
the workspace switching method is more troublesome compared with the realworld scenario. In this paper, the display contents on the horizontal and verticalsurfaces are connected like a single display to realize an intuitive and flexible
digital desktop workspace that fits into the real world. Users can easily move thedisplayed information from one surface to another by dragging via touch input.
The proposed system was employed in a user experiment to investigate the performance and impression of information movement by dragging.
Keywords. Dragging, horizontal and vertical surface, tabletop workspace, tangible user interface

1

Introduction

Real-world desktop workspaces are roughly divided into horizontal and vertical areas.
Each area has a suitable use and special effects, and people choose horizontal or verticalareas depending on their purpose. Especially in desktop workspaces that processes digital information, the horizontal and vertical areas are often used for input and output,
respectively. In such a case, a keyboard and/or mouse can be used for input, and a computer screen can be used to present visual information. This implies that the degree of
freedom in working with digital information is limited. For instance, workers cannot
use a workspace the way they do for non-digital work, such as viewing a textbook next
to a notebook on a desk or writing a memo with a calendar on the wall.
Therefore, we propose a multi-surface interactive system called CrosSI. The system canseamlessly connect the horizontal and vertical display surfaces to appear as a single
screen. Further, both surfaces accept touch input from users, which allows them to intuitively move the displayed information from one surface to another by dragging an
area of the displayed information by using the two surfaces properly as per their working context. In [1], we reported the design, implementation, and preliminary user study;

116however, the horizontal and vertical surfaces were controlled by a Windows personal
computer (PC) and a Raspberry Pi 3 device, respectively. We observed that the processing of Raspberry Pi was too slow to appropriately evaluate the user experience.
Thus, in this study, we conducted a similar experiment to characterize the dragging operation on connected horizontal and vertical surfaces under a condition of all processes
being executed on a single Windows PC to match the processing speed on both surfaces.
Furthermore, this paper describes a new prototype system with an enhancement ofcross-surface continuity and use case scenarios.

2

Related Work

Several strategies have been developed to facilitate information transfer between thehorizontal and vertical areas of the desktop workspace. Augmented surface [2] is a system that focuses on conference space and has large displays on the desktop and wall as
an extension of the notebook screen. The contents of each display are continuous like asingle screen, and information can be moved by mouse operation. Experiments haveshown that users can quickly understand how to operate the system. However, previous
research have demonstrated that even if the display areas are continuous in terms of thesoftware, information appears distorted or divided due to the space or bezels between
the displays, which can decline the display and interactive performance of the system[3]. BendDesk [4] and Curve [5] improve the operability by connecting displays seamlessly. Both systems use a curved surface to connect the horizontal and vertical displaysby employing a multi-touch input technique. Hence, the vertical display is fixed. By
contrast, CrosSI consists of a horizontal surface and multiple vertical surfaces in which
the vertical surface can be grabbed and lifted. This is expected to realize a flexible andtangible workspace.

3

Use Case Scenarios

As a particular use case of CrosSI, we pick up a situation where several people makesightseeing plans. An electrical map where the tourist information is registered is displayed on the horizontal surface. When the user moves the vertical surface placed on
the table to the place of interest, photos and explanations about nearby tourist spots aresequentially displayed on the vertical surface (Fig. 1(a)). Given that the display contents
are connected on the horizontal and vertical surfaces, points on the map showing thelocations of the sightseeing spots and their detailed information can be connected withlink lines to express the relationship intuitively (Fig. 1(b)). This allows the user to think
about the route around a tourist spot by drawing a line on the horizontal surface while
viewing the relevant information on the vertical surface. Information is made physicallyconspicuous by a vertical surface protruding in a three-dimensional space, which helps
the users to intuitively understand the distance and positional relationship between two
tourist spots. In addition, this system can be used to change the location of information

117

easily. For example, a user can write the contents of a discussion in a memo using ahorizontal surface and then move it to a vertical surface and share it with others (Fig.
1(c)). Further, information about tourist spots can be clustered together on a verticalsurface for each theme, or the vertical surface can be moved to display information on
the vertical surface to other users.

Fig. 1. Functional examples of a sightseeing planning application.

4

Design and Implementation of CrosSI

CrosSI consists of a desk with a horizontal surface and one or more cubic objects witha vertical surface (Fig. 2). The vertical surface is designed to be moved on and easy tolift above the horizontal surface. The horizontal and vertical surfaces function as touch
screens to allow direct manipulation of information by the user. To realize seamlessinformation presentation between horizontal and vertical surfaces, the vertical surface
is designed to be bezel-less, which implies that the display content divided into eachsurface is presented continuously like a single screen when the vertical surface is placedon a horizontal surface.
The surface can be realized using infrared (IR) LEDs, a projector, and an acrylic platebased on the principle of diffused illumination (DI) [6], rather than using a smartphoneor a tablet PC with a bezel. Additionally, a fiducial marker is attached to the bottom of
the vertical surface to be detected by the IR camera, in which the position and orientation
relative to the horizontal surface can be obtained to calculate the real-time posture of thevertical surface. Given that the fiducial marker is unique, the system can identify multiple vertical surfaces simultaneously. The fiducial marker can also be used to determine
whether the vertical surface is in contact with the horizontal surface (placed on a table)or lifted by hands. If a vertical surface is placed on the table, then each surface displays
the connected content. Otherwise, each surface shows different contents while the vertical surface is lifted. This implies that the cube with the vertical surface can act as an
information container that may provide the user with a feeling of direct manipulation
during information transfer.
A user can transfer information between the surfaces by dragging the image around. The
process can be divided into three steps: (1) touch input on the surface is detected using
the IR camera (on the horizontal surface, the posture of the vertical surface is also detected); (2) the information (image) position is translated based on the user’s dragging

118

motion and posture of the vertical surface; and (3) the information can be projected withimage correction to make the two surfaces appear connected. As described in Section 1,
all processes are executed on a single Windows PC to match the processing speed on
both surfaces to perform a fair experiment. Since the processing for both surfaces on the
PC runs separately and communicates via socket communication with each other, theprocessing for vertical surface can easily be migrated to the Raspberry Pi environment
if the processing speed is improved in the future.

Fig. 2. System configuration and processing flow.

5

User Study

To understand the performance of information movement in CrosSI, we evaluated basic
dragging on horizontal and vertical surfaces.
MethodThe experiment was conducted on 10 university students in their early 20s. First, tocompare dragging on various surfaces in CrosSI, they were asked to move a circular
image to another circle, i.e., the goal is to go back and forth either on the same surface
or across different surfaces (Fig. 3(a)). Thereafter, to clarify the importance of hardware
continuity between horizontal and vertical surfaces, dragging performances across surfaces with a non-display area of 5 mm and 10 mm width were compared assuming abezel (Fig. 3(b)). In total, 6 × 2 dragging patterns were evaluated. In all conditions, thedistance between the two circles was set to 7 cm. Fig. 3(c) shows a scene of dragging
across the surfaces. Approximately one-minute practice was allowed before the experiment. After the experiment, the subjects answered the question on which of the two
operations was easier by using a paired comparison. The task completion time andlength of the dragging path were measured as quantitative results on the ease of operation and accuracy of dragging.

119

(a) Dragging on various surfaces(b) Dragging across various width bezels(c) State of dragging

Fig. 3. Dragging task experiment.

Results
The average score for each dragging method is expressed on a scale that is based on
Scheffe’s pairwise comparison (Nakaya variation). This allows the subject’s personal
feelings to be expressed as an interval scale. The results based on the dragging shownin Fig. 3(a) and (b) are shown in Fig. 4(a) and (b), respectively (p < 0.01). The lengthof the Y0.05 arrows act as indicators of a significant difference between two conditions(p < 0.05) if the distance between two scores is larger than the length.

(a) Comparison results by various surfaces(b) Comparison results by bezel widthFig. 4. Paired comparison results of dragging.

The comparison results by dragging on the same surface or across different surfaces
indicates that the subject felt that dragging on the horizontal surface was easy whiledragging across different surfaces was observed to be most difficult. Fig. 5 shows thesuperposition of the dragging paths of all subjects. The variance in the path looks smallest in the case of horizontal surface. On the vertical surface, the dragging past the goal
point (circle) and the variance increases laterally around the boundary of the surface
when dragging across the surface. The average path length on the horizontal surface
was shorter than in the other environments (Fig. 6). Fig. 7(a) demonstrates the timerequired for dragging on surfaces with different slopes. The required time increases in
the order of horizontal surface, vertical surface, and both surfaces.
From the comparison result based on the bezel width (Fig. 4(b)), the subjects felt thatdragging across the 10 mm bezel was difficult. Furthermore, dragging in an environment without a bezel was the easiest, but there was no significant difference obtainedby dragging H downward across a 5 mm wide bezel. Fig. 7(b) shows the average time
to complete tasks of dragging with different bezel width. In the upward dragging scenario, the wider the bezels seem to take longer time, while the downward dragging was
not much different.

120

Fig. 5. Superposition of dragging paths of all subjects.

(a) Dragging on various surfaces

Fig. 6. Average path length of the dragging.

(b) Dragging across various width bezels

Fig. 7. Average time required for dragging.

6

Discussion

The latest system showed the same characteristics as the first prototype [1] in which thehorizontal area was suitable for dragging operation via touch input; however, the reason
for this was clarified by the experiment presented in this paper. Dragging on the horizontal surface is considered accurate because the variance in its path is less diverse andthe length is short. The advantage of using a horizontal sur-face is that the operation canbe performed accurately in a short time. On the contrary, on the vertical surface, thedragging path near the goal extends up and down as if it had passed the goal. Therefore,dragging on the vertical surface is considered to be less accurate than on the horizontal
surface. By dragging across the surface, the variance in the path can be confirmed
mainly at the boundary of the surface. When this dragging is compared to the verticalsurface, the path length does not change; however, the task completion time gets longer.
During the experiment, we observed that the subjects stopped the operation for a moment between the horizontal and vertical surfaces to adjust their finger orientation,
which is presumed to increase the completion time. We believe that the subject faceddifficulty because of the change in finger posture due to the difference in the inclinationof the surface. Moreover, compared with the experimental result determined using thefirst prototype [1], the dragging on the vertical surface is preferred in this experiment.
This is believed to be the effect of eliminating the vertical surface delay.
The experiments revealed that the subjects felt that dragging across the surface waseasier as the bezel between the surfaces got thinner. This result is consistent with previous research [3] in which information distortion and division by the bezel degrades
the display and interactive performance; however, the authors did not evaluate the effects of the width of the bezel. By contrast, we tried two widths of bezel and confirmed
no significant difference in dragging between in an environment without a bezel and121one with a relatively thin bezel of 5 mm. In other words, the bezel between the horizontal and vertical surfaces is an obstacle for dragging; nevertheless, a bezel of less than 5
mm width may be tolerated as much as an environment without a bezel. Therefore, used
smartphones might be used as a component for horizontal surface.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

122

R. Otsuki and K. Fujinami, “CrosSI: A Novel Workspace with Connected Horizontal and Vertical Interactive Surfaces,” in Proc. ISS, 2018, pp. 339-344.
J. Rekimoto and M. Saitoh, “Augmented surfaces: a spatially continuous work
space for hybrid computing environments,” in Proc. SIGCHI, 1999, pp. 378-385.
X. Bi, S. Bae, and R. Balakrishnan, “Effects of interior bezels of tiled-monitor
large displays on visual search, tunnel steering, and target selection,” in Proc.
SIGCHI, 2010, pp. 65-74.
M. Weiss, S. Voelker, C. Sutter, and J. Borchers, "BendDesk: dragging acrossthe curve,” in Proc. ITS, 2010, pp. 1-10.
R. Wimmer et al., “Curve: revisiting the digital desk,” in Proc. NordiCHI, 2010,
pp. 561-570.
N. Matsushita and J. Rekimoto, “HoloWall: designing a finger, hand, body, andobject sensitive wall,” in Proc. UIST, 1997, pp. 209-210.

236