# The Effect of Isomorphic Pitch Layouts on the Transfer of Musical Learning +
## 3 Results
### Qualitative Content Analysis
#### 3.3.2 Reason for Layout Preference
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c 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, IsUnTra = 0) \(<\) & \(-\)0.16 & 0.12 & \(-\)Inf & 0.03 & 10.61 & 0.91 & \\ IsNonIso (lsMus = 0, IsBos = 1, IsUnTra = 0) \(<\) & \(-\)0.05 & 0.15 & \(-\)Inf & 0.19 & 1.70 & 0.63 & \\ IsNonIso (lsMus = 1, IsBos = 0, IsUnTra = 0) \(<\) & \(-\)0.09 & 0.13 & \(-\)Inf & 0.11 & 3.18 & 0.76 & \\ IsNonIso (lsMus = 1, IsBos = 1, IsBos = 1, IsUnTra = 0) \(<\) & \(-\)0.25 & 0.14 & \(-\)Inf & \(-\)0.01 & 23.10 & 0.96 & * \\ IsNonIso (lsMus = 0, IsBos = 0, IsUnTra = 1) \(>\) & 0.08 & 0.14 & \(-\)0.16 & Inf & 2.36 & 0.70 & \\ IsNonIso (lsMus = 0, IsBos = 1, IsBos = 1, IsUnTra = 1) \(>\) & 0.32 & 0.19 & 0.01 & Inf & 21.04 & 0.95 & * \\ IsNonIso (lsMus = 1, IsBos = 0, IsUnTra = 1) \(<\) & \(-\)0.45 & 0.17 & \(-\)Inf & \(-\)0.17 & 209.53 & 1.00 & * \\ IsNonIso (lsMus = 1, IsBos = 1, IsUnTra = 1) \(<\) & \(-\)0.34 & 0.18 & \(-\)Inf & \(-\)0.05 & 31.52 & 0.97 & * \\ IsBos (lsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 0, IsUnTra = 0) \(<\) & \(-\)0.13 & 0.29 & \(-\)Inf & 0.35 & 2.07 & 0.67 & \\ IsBos (lsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 0, IsUnTra = 0) \(<\) & \(-\)0.02 & 0.30 & \(-\)Inf & 0.48 & 1.08 & 0.52 & \\ IsBos (lsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 0, IsUnTra = 0) \(<\) & \(-\)0.36 & 0.35 & \(-\)Inf & 0.20 & 5.76 & 0.85 & \\ IsBos (lsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 1, IsUnTra = 0) \(<\) & \(-\)0.52 & 0.35 & \(-\)Inf & 0.06 & 13.39 & 0.93 & \\ IsBos (lsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 0, IsUnTra = 1) \(>\) & 0.02 & 0.29 & \(-\)0.47 & Inf & 1.14 & 0.53 & \\ IsBos (lsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 1, IsUnTra = 1) \(>\) & \(-\)0.26 & 0.30 & \(-\)0.24 & Inf & 4.33 & 0.81 & \\ IsBos (lsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 0, IsUnTra = 1) \(<\) & \(-\)0.09 & 0.41 & \(-\)Inf & 0.59 & 1.39 & 0.58 & \\ IsBos (lsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 1, IsUnTra = 1) \(>\) & \(-\)0.30 & 0.35 & \(-\)Inf & 0.27 & 4.24 & 0.81 & * \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsIso = 0, IsHo = 0, IsHo = 0) \(>\) & 2.12 & 0.32 & 1.59 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsIsoIso = 1, IsUnTra = 0) \(>\) & 2.19 & 0.33 & 1.65 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 0, IsHo = 0) \(>\) & 1.89 & 0.36 & 1.30 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 1, IsUnTra = 0) \(>\) & 1.69 & 0.37 & 1.09 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsIso = 0, IsHo = 0, IsUnTra = 1) \(>\) & 0.264 & 0.34 & 2.09 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsIso = 1, IsHo = 1, IsUnTra = 1) \(>\) & 0.211 & 0.33 & 1.56 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 1, IsUnTra = 1) \(>\) & 0.21 & 0.33 & 1.56 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 1, IsUnTra = 1) \(>\) & 0.220 & 0.36 & 1.59 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 1, IsUnTra = 1) \(>\) & 1.54 & 0.37 & 0.93 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ Layout(sMs = 0) \(>\) & 0.55 & 0.11 & 0.37 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ Layout(sMs = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.32 & 0.11 & 0.14 & Inf & 379.95 & 1.00 & * \\ Perft(sMs = 0) \(>\) 0 & 0.17 & 0.05 & 0.09 & Inf & 7999.00 & 1.00 & * \\ Perft(sMs = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.11 & 0.05 & 0.03 & Inf & 70.43 & 0.99 & * \\ Layout(sNocPerfNo (lsMus = 0) \(<\) & \(-\)0.11 & 0.06 & \(-\)Inf & \(-\)0.01 & 33.48 & 0.97 & * \\ Layout(sNocPerfNo (lsMus = 1) \(<\) 0 & \(-\)0.01 & 0.06 & \(-\)Inf & 0.09 & 1.42 & 0.59 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Melody transfer 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. sub-theme, as well as the number of statements per sub-theme. Table 8 shows the layout preferences for the numbers of participants who made statements fitting into each sub-theme. The sub-theme _Layout structure_ contained statements made by separate participants suggesting how identifiable aspects of the pitch layouts influenced their layout preferences. Such aspects included the positions of notes, the way notes were grouped, and the pattern sequences followed.