# The Effect of Isomorphic Pitch Layouts on the Transfer of Musical Learning +
## 3 Results
### Exploratory Analysis
#### 3.2.4. Arpeggio Immediate Retention Task  
Table 4 and Figure 20 show:  
* Strong evidence that, for the Wicki-like layouts, musicians performed better on the isomorphic version; for the Bosanquet-like layouts, non-musicians and musicians both performed better on the non-isomorphic versions.
* Very strong evidence that musicians performed better on the non-isomorphic Bosanquet-like layout than on the non-isomorphic Wicki layout.
* Strong evidence that musicians performed substantially better than non-musicians under all conditions (mean effect across all conditions is 1.58).
* Very strong evidence that accuracy improved for the second-played layout. For musicians only, performance also improved with successive performances of the task but less so on the second layout.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Hypothesis** & **Estimate** & **Est.Error** & **CLLower** & **CLUpper** & **Evid.Ratio** & **Post.Prob** & **Star** \\ \hline IsNonIso (lsMus = 0, IsBos = 0) \(>\) 0 & 0.27 & 0.24 & \(-\)0.13 & Inf & 6.98 & 0.87 & \\ IsNonIso (lsMus = 0, IsBos = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.68 & 0.29 & 0.20 & Inf & 99.00 & 0.99 & * \\ IsNonIso (lsMus = 1, IsBos = 0) \(>\) 0 & 0.24 & 0.28 & \(-\)0.21 & Inf & 4.25 & 0.81 & \\ IsNonIso (lsMus = 1, IsBos = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.82 & 0.31 & 0.32 & Inf & 204.13 & 1.00 & * \\ IsBos (lsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 0) \(<\) 0 & \(-\)0.23 & 0.44 & \(-\)Inf & 0.49 & 2.32 & 0.70 & \\ IsBos (lsMus = 0) \(>\) 0 & 0.17 & 0.47 & \(-\)0.60 & Inf & 1.83 & 0.65 & \\ IsBos (lsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 0) \(>\) 0 & 0.69 & 0.54 & \(-\)0.20 & Inf & 8.80 & 0.90 & * \\ IsBos (lsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 1) \(>\) 0 & 1.26 & 0.56 & 0.36 & Inf & 83.21 & 0.99 & * \\ IsMus (lsMuslonos = 0, IsBos = 0) \(>\) 0 & 1.92 & 0.49 & 1.13 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ IsMus (lsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 1) \(>\) 0 & 1.89 & 0.52 & 1.06 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ IsMus (lsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 0) \(>\) 0 & 2.84 & 0.55 & 1.93 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ IsMus (lsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 1) \(>\) 0 & 2.98 & 0.57 & 2.02 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ LayoutNo (lsMus = 0) \(>\) 0 & 0.69 & 0.23 & 0.30 & Inf & 570.43 & 1.00 & * \\ LayoutNo (lsMus = 1) \(>\) 0 & 1.09 & 0.25 & 0.68 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ PerFNo (lsMus = 0) \(>\) 0 & 0.29 & 0.09 & 0.13 & Inf & 1332.33 & 1.00 & * \\ PerFNo (lsMus = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.53 & 0.07 & 0.41 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ LayoutNo:PerFNo (lsMus = 0) \(>\) 0 & 0.08 & 0.15 & \(-\)0.15 & Inf & 2.53 & 0.72 & \\ LayoutNo:PerFNo (lsMus = 1) \(<\) 0 & \(-\)0.12 & 0.15 & \(-\)Inf & 0.12 & 4.15 & 0.81 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* “\(\star\): The expected value under the hypothesis lies outside the 95% CI.  
\end{table}
Table 3: Arpeggio training task: directional hypothesis tests for the effects of _IsNonIsomorphic_, _IsBosanquet_, and _IsMusician_, _LayoutNo_, _PerfNo_, and their interaction _LayoutNo:PerfNo_, across the conditions shown in parentheses.  
Figure 17: Arpeggio training task: the estimated marginal effects on _Accuracy_ (and their 95% credibility intervals) of _IsNonIsomorphic_ and _IsBosanquet_ for non-musicians and musicians.  
Figure 19: Arpeggio retention task: the model’s population level effects and 95% credibility intervals (see Table 10 for numerical values).  
Figure 20: Arpeggio retention task: the estimated marginal effects on _Accunacy_ (and their 95% credibility intervals) of _IsNonIsomorphic_ and _IsBosanquet_ for non-musicians and musicians.  
Figure 18: Arpeggio retention task: mean _Accuracy_ scores with 95% confidence intervals obtained from 10,000 bootstrap samples.