# The Effect of Isomorphic Pitch Layouts on the Transfer of Musical Learning +
## 3 Results
### Exploratory Analysis
#### 3.2.5 Melody Transfer Task  
Table 5 and Figure 23 show:  
* Strong evidence that non-musicians' performances in the trained key were better on the isomorphic Wicki layout compared with the non-isomorphic version; strong evidence that musicians' performances in the trained key were better using the isomorphic Bosanquet layout than using the non-isomorphic version.
* Strong evidence that non-musicians' performances in the untrained key were worse on the isomorphic Bosanquet than the non-isomorphic Bosanquet layout; very strong evidence that musicians' performances in the untrained key were better on the isomorphic versions of both types of layout (mean effect of 0.79).
* Strong evidence that musicians' performances in the trained key were better on the non-isomorphic Bosanquet than the non-isomorphic Wicki layout.
* Very strong evidence that musicians performed better than non-musicians across all conditions (mean effect was 2.05).
* Very strong evidence that performance improved with the second layout and with successive performances, although for non-musicians this reduced on the second layout.  
\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 (IsMus = 0, IsBos = 0) \(>\) 0 & 0.06 & 0.16 & \(-\)0.20 & Inf & 1.87 & 0.65 & \\ IsNonIso (IsMus = 0, IsBos = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.45 & 0.19 & 0.14 & Inf & 116.65 & 0.99 & * \\ IsNonIso (IsMus = 1, IsBos = 0) \(<\) 0 & \(-\)0.56 & 0.20 & \(-\)Inf & \(-\)0.23 & 295.30 & 1.00 & * \\ IsNonIso (Ms = 1, IsBos = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.67 & 0.21 & 0.33 & Inf & 2665.67 & 1.00 & * \\ IsBos (IsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 0) \(<\) 0 & \(-\)0.30 & 0.28 & \(-\)Inf & 0.16 & 5.97 & 0.86 & \\ IsBos (IsMus = 0, IsNonIso = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.10 & 0.31 & \(-\)0.41 & Inf & 1.65 & 0.62 & \\ IsBos (IsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 0) \(<\) 0 & \(-\)0.36 & 0.34 & \(-\)Inf & 0.20 & 6.17 & 0.86 & \\ IsBos (IsMus = 1, IsNonIso = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.87 & 0.40 & 0.21 & Inf & 58.26 & 0.98 & * \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 0) \(>\) 0 & 1.71 & 0.31 & 1.21 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 0, IsBos = 1) \(>\) 0 & 1.10 & 0.35 & 0.52 & Inf & 1332.33 & 1.00 & * \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 0) \(>\) 0 & 1.65 & 0.34 & 1.09 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ IsMus (IsNonIso = 1, IsBos = 1) \(>\) 0 & 1.87 & 0.39 & 1.23 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ LayoutNo (IsMus = 0) \(>\) 0 & 0.44 & 0.13 & 0.22 & Inf & 3999.00 & 1.00 & * \\ LayoutNo (IsMus = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.61 & 0.16 & 0.36 & Inf & Inf & 1.00 & * \\ PerFNo (IsMus = 0) \(<\) 0 & \(-\)0.07 & 0.13 & \(-\)Inf & 0.14 & 2.44 & 0.71 & \\ PerFNo (IsMus = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.29 & 0.15 & 0.06 & Inf & 47.78 & 0.98 & * \\ LayoutNo:PerFNo (IsMus = 0) \(<\) 0 & \(-\)0.16 & 0.14 & \(-\)Inf & 0.06 & 7.76 & 0.89 & * \\ LayoutNo:PerFNo (IsMus = 1) \(>\) 0 & 0.30 & 0.15 & 0.05 & Inf & 40.03 & 0.98 & * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* * The expected value under the hypothesis lies outside the 95% CI.  
\end{table}
Table 4: Arpeggio 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 21: Melody transfer task: mean _Accuracy_ scores with 95% confidence intervals obtained from 10,000 bootstrap samples.  
Figure 23: Melody transfer task: the estimated marginal effects on _Accuracy_ (and their 95% credibility intervals) of _IsUntrained_ and _IsNonIsomorphic_ for Bosanquet-like and Wicki-like layouts and for non-musicians and musicians  
Figure 22: Melody transfer task: the model’s population level effects and 95% credibility intervals (see Table 10 for numerical values).