# The Effect of Isomorphic Pitch Layouts on the Transfer of Musical Learning +
## 3 Results
### Exploratory Analysis
#### 3.2.2. Scale Immediate Retention Task  
Table 2 and Figure 14 show  
* No strong evidence for any impact of isomorphism on accuracy.
* Strong evidence that non-musicians performed better on the non-isomorphic Bosanquet-like layout than on the non-isomorphic Wicki-like layout.
* Very strong evidence that musicians performed substantially better than non-musicians under all conditions (mean effect across all conditions was 1.08).
* Very strong evidence that accuracy improved in the second-played layout. However, only musicians improved with successive performances, and the improvements for musicians reduced for their second-played layout.  
Figure 14: Scale retention task: the estimated marginal effects on _Accuracy_ (and their 95% credibility intervals) of IsNonIsomorphic and _IsBosanquet_ for non-musicians and musicians.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Hypothesis** & **Estimate** & **EstError** & **CLLower** & **CLUpper** & **EvidRatio** & **Post.Prob** & **Star** \\ \hline IsNonIso (IsMus = 0, IsBos = 0) \(<\) 0 & \(-\)0.21 & 0.25 & \(-\)Inf & 0.22 & 3.98 & 0.80 & \\ IsNonIso (IsMus = 0, IsBos = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.27 & 0.28 & \(-\)0.21 & Inf & 4.70 & 0.82 & \\ IsNonIso (IsMus = 1, IsBos = 0) \(<\) 0 & \(-\)0.19 & 0.28 & \(-\)Inf & 0.27 & 3.11 & 0.76 & \\ IsNonIso (IsMus = 1, IsBos = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.29 & 0.31 & \(-\)0.22 & Inf & 4.69 & 0.82 & \\ IsBos (IsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 0) \(>\) 0 & 0.24 & 0.36 & \(-\)0.35 & Inf & 2.92 & 0.74 & \\ IsBos (IsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.71 & 0.39 & 0.07 & Inf & 28.52 & 0.97 & * \\ IsBos (IsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 0) \(>\) 0 & \(-\)0.15 & 0.43 & \(-\)0.84 & Inf & 0.57 & 0.36 & \\ IsBos (IsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.33 & 0.44 & \(-\)0.39 & Inf & 3.47 & 0.78 & \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 0) \(>\) 0 & 1.26 & 0.41 & 0.59 & Inf & 399.00 & 1.00 & * \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 1) \(>\) 0 & 1.28 & 0.45 & 0.55 & Inf & 499.00 & 1.00 & * \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 0) \(>\) 0 & 0.88 & 0.47 & 0.12 & Inf & 32.20 & 0.97 & * \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.90 & 0.48 & 0.10 & Inf & 30.37 & 0.97 & * \\ LayoutNo (IsMus = 0) \(>\) 0 & 0.96 & 0.21 & 0.61 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ LayoutNo (IsMus = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.89 & 0.23 & 0.51 & Inf & 7999.00 & 1.00 & * \\ PerFNo (IsMus = 0) \(<\) 0 & \(-\)0.01 & 0.13 & \(-\)Inf & 0.20 & 1.18 & 0.54 & \\ PerFNo (IsMus = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.65 & 0.14 & 0.42 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ LayoutNoPerFNo (IsMus = 0) \(>\) 0 & 0.04 & 0.17 & \(-\)0.24 & Inf & 1.39 & 0.58 & \\ LayoutNoPerFNo (IsMus = 1) \(<\) 0 & \(-\)0.38 & 0.20 & \(-\)Inf & \(-\)0.05 & 32.47 & 0.97 & * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* * The expected value under the hypothesis lies outside the 95% CI.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Scale retention 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 13: Scale retention task: the model’s population level effects and 95% credibility intervals (see Table 2 for numerical values).