Musical Rhythm, Linguistic Rhythm, and Human Evolution

Author(s): Aniruddh D. Patel

Source: Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1 (September 2006), pp.
99-104
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/mp.2006.24.1.99 .
Accessed: 28/08/2014 13:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Music
Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 146.175.105.47 on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:37:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Musical Rhythm and Evolution 99

M USICAL R HYTHM , L INGUISTIC R HYTHM , AND H UMAN E VOLUTION

A NIRUDDH D. PATEL & Hutsler, 2005; McDermott & Hauser, 2005), is to

The Neurosciences Institute determine whether there are fundamental aspects of
music cognition which are innate and which cannot
THERE IS NOW A VIGOROUS debate over the evolution- be explained as byproducts or secondary uses of more
ary status of music. Some scholars argue that humans clearly adaptive cognitive abilities such as auditory
have been shaped by evolution to be musical, while scene analysis or language. Demonstrating the exis-
others maintain that musical abilities have not been a tence of such aspects would favor adaptationist argu-
target of natural selection but reflect an alternative ments. Without this demonstration, there is no reason
use of more adaptive cognitive skills. One way to to reject the null hypothesis that human minds have
address this debate is to break music cognition into its not been specifically shaped by natural selection for
underlying components and determine whether any music.
of these are innate, specific to music, and unique to This is a useful approach because it links evolutionary
humans. Taking this approach, Justus and Hutsler studies of music to empirical research, specifically on
(2005) and McDermott and Hauser (2005) suggest issues of the innateness, domain-specificity, and
that musical pitch perception can be explained with- human-specificity of musical abilities. Reviewing what
out invoking natural selection for music. However, is known about these issues, the authors conclude that
they leave the issue of musical rhythm largely unex- at present there is no compelling reason to reject the
plored. This comment extends their conceptual null hypothesis mentioned above. Both articles, how-
approach to musical rhythm and suggests how issues ever, focus almost exclusively on the perception of
of innateness, domain specificity, and human speci- musical pitch. The purpose of this comment is to con-
ficity might be addressed. sider how the approach advocated by these papers
could be applied to musical rhythm.
Key words: musical rhythm, linguistic rhythm,
synchronization, basal ganglia, evolution Is Musical Rhythm an Offshoot
of Linguistic Rhythm?

From an evolutionary perspective, an obvious question

R
ECENT YEARS HAVE SEEN renewed interest in the about musical rhythm is its relationship to speech
idea that human minds have been shaped by nat- rhythm, since music and language both feature rich
ural selection for music (e.g., Mithen, 2005; rhythmic organization (Jackendoff & Lerdahl, in press;
Wallin, Merker, & Brown, 2000), an idea first proposed Patel & Daniele, 2003). One area of overlap concerns
by Darwin (1871). Enthusiasm for the idea has spread perceptual grouping, the mental clustering of events
rapidly, and there are a growing number of hypotheses into units (e.g., phrases) at different hierarchical levels.
about the possible adaptive roles of music in human Grouping in music and speech shows many similari-
evolution (see Fitch, in press, for one review). Some ties. Music and language mark group boundaries in
thinkers remain skeptical, however, regarding music as similar ways using pitch movements and durational
an enjoyable mental technology built from preexisting lengthening, and cross-domain sensitivity to these
cognitive skills (e.g., Pinker, 1997). These skeptics echo grouping cues starts early in life (Jusczyk & Krumhansl,
the sentiment of William James, who said that love of 1993). There is also evidence from neuropsychology
music is “a mere incidental peculiarity of the nervous and neuroimaging that the perception of grouping in
system, with no teleological significance” (cited in the two domains uses similar brain substrates (Knösche
Langer, 1942, p. 210). et al., 2005; Patel, Peretz, Tramo, & Labrecque, 1998).
How can this debate be resolved? One approach, Thus grouping in music may well be an offshoot of
advocated in two recent articles in this journal (Justus prosodic grouping abilities.

Music Perception VOLUME 24, ISSUE 1, PP. 99–104, ISSN 0730-7829, ELECTRONIC ISSN 1533-8312 © 2006 BY THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA . ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PLEASE DIRECT ALL REQUESTS FOR PERMISSION TO PHOTOCOPY OR REPRODUCE ARTICLE CONTENT
THROUGH THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS ’ S RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS WEBSITE AT WWW. UCPRESS . EDU / JOURNALS / RIGHTS . HTM

This content downloaded from 146.175.105.47 on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:37:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
100 A. D. Patel

Turning from grouping to meter, the story is quite Beat Perception and Synchronization: Innateness
different. In every culture there is some form of music
with a regular beat, a periodic pulse that affords tempo- Young infants do not synchronize their movements to
ral coordination between performers and elicits a syn- a musical beat (Longhi, 2003). However, this is not evi-
chronized motor response from listeners (Nettl, 2000). dence against innateness: Young infants also do not
Although early theories of speech rhythm proposed an speak, even though there are good reasons to believe
underlying isochronous pulse based on stresses or sylla- that humans are biologically predisposed to acquire
bles (Abercrombie, 1967; Pike, 1945), empirical data speech. Thus one way to address the innateness of BPS
have not supported this idea (Bertinetto, 1989; Dauer, is via developmental studies, in order to explore
1983), and contemporary studies of speech rhythm whether the brain seems specifically prepared to
have largely abandoned the isochrony issue (e.g., Grabe acquire this ability. At present we lack basic develop-
& Low, 2002; Ramus, Nespor, & Mehler, 1999). mental information BPS, including the earliest age at
A musical beat typically occurs in the context of a which children reliably synchronize to a beat, and what
meter, a hierarchical organization of beats in which percent of (musically untrained) children and adults
some beats are perceived as stronger than others. attain this ability. Synchronization to a beat is attrac-
Interestingly, speech also has a “metrical” hierarchy tive for behavioral study because it requires only gross
based on stress or prominence (Selkirk, 1984; Terken & motor skills (e.g., clapping, tapping, or bobbing up and
Hermes, 2000), suggesting that a tendency to organize down), yet has received relatively little developmental
rhythmic sequences in terms of hierarchical promi- research (see Drake et al., 2000, and McAuley, Jones,
nence patterns may originate in language. Crucially, Holub, Johnston, & Miller, 2006, for two relevant studies).
however, the “beats” of speech (stressed syllables) do This is an area where more developmental work is
not mark out a regular pulse. This difference has warranted, examining how innate predispositions and
important cognitive consequences. In particular, the experience interact to produce BPS (cf. Hannon &
use of a perceptually isochronous pulse in music Trehub, 2005; Phillips-Silver & Trainor, 2005; Repp,
engages periodic temporal expectancies that play a 2005).
basic role in music cognition (Jones 1976; Jones &
Boltz, 1989), but which appear to play little or no role Beat Perception and Synchronization:
in ordinary speech perception (cf. Pitt & Samuel, Domain-Specificity
1990). Humans are able to extract periodicities from
complex auditory stimuli, and can focus their One way to study the domain-specificity of BPS is to
expectancies on periodicities at different hierarchical determine if brain damage which disrupts it also dis-
levels in music (Drake, Baruch, & Jones, 2000). These rupts other nonmusical cognitive abilities. The neu-
periodic expectancies are the basis of motor synchro- ropsychological literature contains descriptions of
nization to the beat on the part of listeners, as shown individuals with musical rhythmic disturbance after
by the fact that listeners typically tap or move slightly brain damage, or “acquired arrhythmia” (e.g., Di
ahead of the actual beat, indicating that synchroniza- Pietro, Laganaro, Leemann, & Schnider, 2003; Fries
tion is based on structured temporal anticipation. & Swihart, 1990; Liégeois-Chauvel, Peretz, Babaï,
Beat perception and synchronization (or BPS) is an Laguitton, & Chauvel, 1998; Mavlov, 1980; Peretz,
aspect of rhythm which appears to be unique to music. 1990; Schuppert, Münte, Wieringa, & Altenmüller,
This aspect of musical rhythm cannot be explained as a 2000; Wilson, Pressing, & Wales, 2002). Two notable
byproduct of linguistic rhythm, and thus merits atten- findings from this literature are that rhythmic abilities
tion in evolutionary studies. Indeed, hypotheses about can be selectively disrupted, leaving pitch processing
the adaptive value of BPS have been offered in evolu- skills relatively intact, and that there are dissociations
tionary theorizing about human music (e.g., Merker, between rhythmic tasks requiring simple discrimina-
2000). Taking the approach to music evolution advo- tion of temporal patterns and those requiring the
cated by Justus & Hutsler (2005) and McDermott & evaluation or production of periodic patterns.
Hauser (2005), the key questions about BPS concern its However, no neuropsychological studies to date have
innateness, its domain specificity, and its human speci- examined relations between deficits in BPS and in
ficity. The remainder of this essay discusses strategies other basic cognitive skills. If such relations can be
for addressing these issues, with the main focus being found, this would suggest that BPS is based on abili-
on human specificity. ties recruited from other brain functions.

This content downloaded from 146.175.105.47 on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:37:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Musical Rhythm and Evolution 101

Beat Perception and Synchronization: cerebral cortex, basal ganglia, and thalamus) involved in
Human-Specificity interval timing, that is, in gauging temporal intervals in
the time range relevant to musical beat perception
McDermott and Hauser (2005) argue that nonhuman (Matell & Meck, 2000). Importantly, the basal ganglia are
animals (henceforth, animals) do not naturally pro- also involved in motor control and sequencing (cf. Janata
duce music. Hence if an animal can acquire an ability & Grafton, 2003), meaning that a brain structure
which is part of human music, then this would suggest involved in perceptually “keeping the beat” is also
that the ability is not part of an adaptation for music. involved in the coordination of patterned movement.
Applying this reasoning to BPS, the question arises If BPS simply required that a common brain struc-
whether animals can learn to synchronize to a musical ture be involved in interval timing and motor control,
beat. (Note that BPS differs in important ways from then one would expect that chimps (and many other
the synchronized displays of certain animals such as animals) would be capable of BPS. This is because the
frogs, crickets, fireflies, etc. See Gerhardt & Huber, basal ganglia subserve interval timing and motor con-
2002, ch.8, and Patel, Iversen, Chen, & Repp, 2005, for trol functions across a wide range of species, including
further discussion). primates and rodents (Buhusi & Meck, 2005).
It is a remarkable fact that despite decades of research However, I suspect BPS requires more than just a com-
in psychology and neuroscience in which animals have mon brain structure that handles both of these func-
been trained to do elaborate tasks, there is not a single tions. This is because BPS involves a special
report of an animal being trained to tap, peck, or move relationship between auditory temporal intervals and
in synchrony with an auditory beat. One might object patterned movement, as evidenced by the fact that
that such a behavior is unnatural for an animal, but this visual rhythms poorly induce BPS in humans (Patel et
misses the point. Monkeys, for example, are often al., 2005). Yet the interval timing abilities of the basal
trained to do highly ecologically unnatural tasks in neu- ganglia are amodal, applying equally well to intervals
roscience experiments (such as tracing ellipses in the defined by auditory vs. visual events. This suggests that
air) for the purpose of research on neural mechanisms some additional force in human evolution modified
of perception or motor control. Thus the relevant ques- the basal ganglia in a way that affords a tight coupling
tion is whether an animal could learn BPS. If so, this between auditory input and motor output.
would indicate that natural selection for music is not One plausible candidate for this evolutionary force is
necessary to account for BPS. vocal learning. Vocal learning involves learning to pro-
A question which immediately arises is which ani- duce vocal signals based on auditory experience and
mals one should study. Chimps and bonobos may seem sensory feedback. This ability seems commonplace to
the obvious choice. Among the great apes they are the us, since every child exhibits it as part of learning to
most closely related to humans. They are also highly speak. An evolutionary perspective, however, reveals
intelligent, as evidenced by research with language- that vocal learning is an uncommon trait, having arisen
trained apes such as Kanzi (Savage-Rumbaugh, Shanker, in only a few groups of animals (including songbirds,
& Taylor, 1998). Furthermore, chimps and bonobos parrots, cetaceans, and some pinnipeds; cf. Fitch, in
produce short bouts of rhythmic ‘drumming’ with their press; Merker, 2005). Notably, humans are unique
hands or feet as part of display or play behavior (Arcadi, among primates in exhibiting complex vocal learning
Robert, & Boesch, 1998; Fitch, in press; Kugler & (Egnor & Hauser, 2004).
Savage-Rumbaugh, 2002), meaning that they can vol- Vocal learning requires a tight coupling between
untarily produce rhythmic movements on a time scale auditory input and motor output in order to match
appropriate for BPS. vocal production to a desired model. This online inte-
Despite these facts, there are reasons to question gration of the auditory and motor system places special
whether apes (and nonhuman primates in general) are demands on the nervous system. Neurobiological
capable of BPS. These reasons pertain to the brain cir- research on birds indicates that vocal learning is associ-
cuits that are involved in beat perception and motor con- ated with modifications to the basal ganglia, which play
trol. Perceptual research on humans using fMRI indicates a key role in mediating a link between auditory input
that rhythms that do (vs. do not) have a regular beat are and motor output during learning (Doupe, Perkel,
associated with increased activity in the basal ganglia Reiner, & Stern, 2005). Since there are many anatomical
(Grahn, 2004). This deep-brain structure is known to be parallels between basal ganglia anatomy in birds and
an essential part of the distributed circuit (involving the mammals, it seems plausible to suggest that human

This content downloaded from 146.175.105.47 on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:37:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
102 A. D. Patel

basal ganglia have also been modified by natural selec- Determining whether nonhuman vocal learners can
tion for vocal learning (cf. Jarvis, 2004). The resulting acquire BPS will be an essential part of probing the
tight coupling between auditory input and motor out- human-specificity of musical abilities.
put may be a necessary foundation for BPS.
In the spirit of comparative research advocated by Author Note
McDermott and Hauser, the foregoing observations can
be condensed into a specific and testable hypothesis, I thank John Iversen and Bruno Repp for insightful
namely that having the neural circuitry for complex comments. This work was supported by Neurosciences
vocal learning is a necessary prerequisite for the ability Research Foundation as part of its research program on
to synchronize with an auditory beat. This “vocal learn- Music and the Brain at The Neurosciences Institute,
ing and rhythmic synchronization hypothesis” predicts where ADP is the Esther J. Burnham Fellow.
that attempts to teach nonhuman primates to synchro-
nize to a beat will not be successful. Furthermore, it Address correspondence to: Aniruddh D. Patel, The
suggests that if primates do fail at BPS it would be pre- Neurosciences Institute, 10640 John Jay Hopkins Dr.,
mature to conclude that BPS is unique to humans. San Diego, CA 92121. E-MAIL [email protected]

References

A BERCROMBIE , D. (1967). Elements of general phonetics. F RIES , W., & S WIHART, A. A. (1990). Disturbance of rhythm
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. sense following right hemisphere damage. Neuropsychologia,
A RCADI , A. C., R OBERT, D., & B OESCH , C. (1998). Buttress 28, 1317–1323.
drumming by wild chimpanzees: Temporal patterning, G EISSMANN , T. (2000). Gibbon song and human music from an
phrase integration into loud calls, and preliminary evidence evolutionary perspective. In N. L. Wallin, B. Merker, & S.
for individual distinctiveness. Primates, 39, 503–516. Brown (Eds.), The origins of music (pp. 103–123). Cambridge,
B ERTINETTO, P. (1989). Reflections on the dichotomy “stress” MA: MIT Press.
vs. “syllable-timing.” Revue de Phonétique Appliquée, 91–93, G ERHARDT, B., & H UBER , F. (2002). Acoustic communication
99–130. in insects and anurans. Chicago: University of Chicago
B UHUSI , C. V., & M ECK , W. H. (2005). What makes us tick? Press.
Functional and neural mechanisms of interval timing. Nature G RABE , E., & LOW, E. L. (2002). Durational variability in
Reviews, Neuroscience, 6, 755–765. speech and the rhythm class hypothesis. In C. Gussenhoven &
DARWIN , C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (pp. 515–546).
to sex. London: John Murray. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
DAUER , R. M. (1983). Stress-timing and syllable-timing G RAHN , J. (2004). Behavioural and functional imaging studies of
reanalyzed. Journal of Phonetics, 11, 51–62. rhythm processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
D I P IETRO, M., L AGANARO, M., L EEMANN , B., & S CHNIDER , University of Cambridge, UK.
A. (2003). Amusia: Selective rhythm processing following left H ANNON , E. E., & T REHUB , S. E. (2005). Tuning in to musical
temporoparietal lesion in a professional musician with rhythms: Infants learn more readily than adults. Proceedings
conduction aphasia. Brain and Language, 87, 152–153. of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102,
D OUPE , A. J., P ERKEL , D. J., R EINER , A., & S TERN , E. A. 12639–12643.
(2005). Birdbrains could teach basal ganglia research a new JACKENDOFF, R., & L ERDAHL , F. (in press). The capacity for
song. Trends in Neurosciences, 28, 353–363. music: What is it, and what’s special about it? Cognition.
D RAKE , C., B ARUCH , C., & J ONES , M. R. (2000). The JANATA , P., & G RAFTON , S. T. (2003). Swinging in the brain:
development of rhythmic attending in auditory sequences: Shared neural substrates for behaviors related to sequencing
Attunement, reference period, focal attending. Cognition, 77, and music. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 682–687.
251–288. JARVIS , E. D. (2004). Learned birdsong and the neurobiology of
E GNOR , S. E. R., & H AUSER , M. D. (2004). A paradox in the human language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
evolution of primate vocal learning. Trends in Neurosciences, 1016, 749–777.
27, 649–654. J ONES , M. R. (1976). Time, our lost dimension: Toward a new
F ITCH , W. T. (in press). The biology and evolution of music: A theory of perception, attention, and memory. Psychological
comparative perspective. Cognition. Review, 83, 323–355.

This content downloaded from 146.175.105.47 on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:37:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Musical Rhythm and Evolution 103

J ONES M. R., & B OLTZ , M. (1989). Dynamic attending and N ETTL , B. (2000). An ethnomusicologist contemplates
responses to time. Psychological Review, 96, 459–491. universals in musical sound and musical culture. In N. L.
J USCZYK , P., & K RUMHANSL , C. (1993). Pitch and rhythmic Wallin, B. Merker, & S. Brown (Eds.), The origins of music (pp.
patterns affecting infants’ sensitivity to musical phrase 463–472). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human PATEL , A. D., & DANIELE , J. R. (2003). An empirical
Perception and Performance, 19, 627–640. comparison of rhythm in language and music. Cognition, 87,
J USTUS , T., & H UTSLER , J. J. (2005). Fundamental issues in the B35–B45.
evolutionary psychology of music: Assessing innateness and PATEL , A. D., I VERSEN , J. R., C HEN , Y., & R EPP, B. H.
domain-specificity. Music Perception, 23, 1–27. (2005). The influence of metricality and modality on
K NÖSCHE , T. R., N EUHAUS , C., H AUEISEN , J., A LTER , K., synchronization with a beat. Experimental Brain Research,
M AESS , B., W ITTE , O. W., et al. (2005). The perception of 163, 226–238.
phrase structure in music. Human Brain Mapping, 24, PATEL , A. D., P ERETZ , I., T RAMO, M., & L ABRECQUE , R.
259–273. (1998). Processing prosodic and musical patterns: A
K UGLER , K., & S AVAGE -RUMBAUGH , S. (2002, June). Rhythmic neuropsychological investigation. Brain and Language, 61,
drumming by Kanzi an adult male bonobo (Pan paniscus) at 123–144.
the language research center. Paper presented at the 25th P ERETZ , I. (1990). Processing of local and global musical
meeting of the American Society of Primatologists, information by unilateral brain-damaged patients. Brain, 113,
Oklahoma University, OK. 1185–1205.
L ANGER , S. (1942). Philosophy in a new key: A study in the P HILLIPS -S ILVER , J., & T RAINOR , L. J. (2005). Feeling the beat
symbolism of reason, right, and art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard in music: Movement influences rhythm perception in infants.
University Press. Science, 308, 1430.
L IÉGEOIS -C HAUVEL , C., P ERETZ , I., B ABAÏ , M., L AGUITTON , P IKE , K. N. (1945). The intonation of American English. Ann
V., & C HAUVEL , P. (1998). Contribution of different cortical Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
areas in the temporal lobes to music processing. Brain, 121, P INKER , S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: Norton.
1853–1867. P ITT, M. A., & S AMUEL , A. G. (1990). The use of rhythm in
LONGHI , E. (2003). The temporal structure of mother-infant attending to speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
interactions in musical contexts. Unpublished doctoral Human Perception and Performance, 16, 564–573.
dissertation, University of Edinburgh. R AMUS , F., N ESPOR , M., & M EHLER , J. (1999). Correlates of
M ATELL , M. S., & M ECK , W. H. (2000). Neuropsychological linguistic rhythm in the speech signal. Cognition, 73,
mechanisms of interval timing behaviour. BioEssays, 22, 265–292.
94–103. R EPP, B. H. (2005). Sensorimotor synchronization: A review of
M AVLOV, L. (1980). Amusia due to rhythm agnosia in a the tapping literature. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12,
musician with left hemisphere damage: A non-auditory 969–992.
supramodal defect. Cortex, 16, 331–338. S AVAGE -RUMBAUGH , S., S HANKER , S. G., & TAYLOR , T. J.
M C AULEY, J. D., J ONES , M. R., H OLUB , S., J OHNSTON , H., & (1998). Apes, language, and the human mind. New York:
M ILLER , N. S. (2006). The time of our lives: Lifespan Oxford University Press.
development of timing and event tracking. Journal of S CHUPPERT, M., M ÜNTE , T. F., W IERINGA , B. M., &
Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 348–367. A LTENMÜLLER , E. (2000). Receptive amusia: Evidence for
M C D ERMOTT, J., & H AUSER , M. D. (2005). The origins of cross-hemispheric neural networks underlying music
music: Innateness, development, and evolution. Music processing strategies. Brain, 123, 546–559.
Perception, 23, 29–59. S ELKIRK , E. O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation
M ERKER , B. (2000). Synchronous chorusing and human between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
origins. In N. L. Wallin, B. Merker, & S. Brown (Eds.), The T ERKEN , J., & H ERMES , D. (2000). The perception of prosodic
origins of music (pp. 315–327). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. prominence. In M. Horne (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and
M ERKER , B. (2005). The conformal motive in birdsong, music, experiment (pp. 89–127). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
and language: An introduction. Annals of the New York WALLIN , N. L., M ERKER , B., & B ROWN , S. (Eds.). (2000). The
Academy of Sciences, 1060, 17–28. origins of music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
M ITHEN , S. (2005). The singing Neanderthals: The origins of W ILSON , S. J., P RESSING , J. L., & WALES , R. J. (2002).
music, language, mind and body. London: Weidenfeld & Modelling rhythmic function in a musician post-stroke.
Nicolson. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1494–1505.

This content downloaded from 146.175.105.47 on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:37:14 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This content downloaded from 146.175.105.47 on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:37:14 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions