JRME,VOLUME38, NUMBER3, PAGES 187-196 187

In this study, the author examined the effects of type of practice (physical, mental,
alternatingphysical/mental,and a motivationalcontrol)and aural knowledgeof results
on improving piano performance. Forty music education and music therapy majors
participatedin a pretestand posttestexperimentusing one of eight treatmentconditions.
The dependentvariables wereperformancetime, numberof pitch errors,and numberof
rhythmerrors. Results revealed that (a) all three practice conditions had significantly
shorterperformancetimes than did the control condition, (b) treatmentsusing physical
practice and alternating mental/physicalpractice yielded significantlyshorterperform-
ance times than did the mental practice treatmentalone, and (c) the physical practice
treatment did not differ significantly from the alternating mental/physicalpractice
treatmentin improvingperformancetimes. No other statisticallysignificant differences
werefound among the threepractice conditions.

Don D. Coffman, Universityof Iowa

Effects of
Mental Practice,
Physical Practice, and Knowledge
of Results on Piano Performance

Musicians commonly acknowledge that they must practice in order to learn,

improve, and maintain their performance skills; they also agree that practice is a
time-consuming and often tedious chore. Despite this problem, music research-
ers have directed little attention toward identifying optimal practice techniques.
In several reviews of music motor learning (Duerksen, 1972; Leonhard &
Colwell, 1976; Rainbow, 1973; Sidnell, 1981), researchers have noted the paucity
of studies in this area.
The use of mental practice as a rehearsal technique has recently gained the
support of music educators and researchers as an area worthy of investigation
(Green, 1986; Kohut, 1985; Ristad, 1982; Ross, 1985; Sandor, 1981). The term
refers to the covert or imaginary rehearsal of a skill without muscular movement
or sound. Psychologists and researchers in physical education have examined
this practice technique for more than 70 years, exploring its use with skills found
in a variety of sports, including basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, tennis,
swimming, golf, karate, and ice hockey. Their efforts indicate that mental
practice can be effective in improving psychomotor skill, despite the absence of
knowledge of results (Zecker, 1982), which is defined as information obtained
from outside the learner during the physical practice of a psychomotor skill
(Bilodeau, 1969).

This articleis based on the author'sdissertation,acceptedby the Universityof Kansas,

1987. For copies of this article, contact Don D. Coffman, Department of Music Education,
1014 Music Building, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242.

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIV on March 22, 2015
188 COFFMAN
Musicians and athletes both seek to develop highly refined psychomotor skills.
Musicians engaging in mental practice, however, unlike athletes, are denied an
additional source of knowledge of results, namely the information arising from
the musical sounds produced. In this study, the author sought to investigate the
effects of (a) mental and physical practice and (b) aural knowledge of results on
improving piano performance.
In a 1916 study, Washburn speculated that muscle activity occurred during
mental imagination, and learning theorists (Kohler, 1925; Tolman, 1934)
suggested that physical trial-and-error practice was not necessary in problem-
solving. Jacobson (1930a, 1930b, 1930c, 1930d, 1931), using electromyography,
was the first to ascertain experimentally whether muscular activity occurred
during imagining. He concluded that muscle activity occurred in response to
imagining a physical act and that the responses were generally confined to the
muscle group associated with the actual performance of the act.
Vandell, Davis, and Clugston (1943) conducted one of the earliest mental
practice studies involving motor skills. Examining basketball free throw shooting
and dart throwing in junior high, high school, and college freshmen males, they
observed that the effects of physical practice and mental practice were almost
identical and provided a basis for future mental practice research.
Although many of the findings in the sport psychology mental practice
literature are equivocal, published reviews (Corbin, 1972; Feltz & Landers, 1983;
Oxendine, 1984; Richardson, 1967a, 1967b; Weinberg, 1981) have observed the
following trends:
1. The exclusive use of physical practice is generally superior to the exclusive
use of mental practice; however, mental practice procedures can be as beneficial
as overt physical practice in improving skilled performance.
2. The combined use of mental practice and physical practice in alternation
can be as effective or more effective than exclusive physical practice.
3. Mental practice benefits initial stages of learning as well as later stages,
although some familiarity with the psychomotor task seems to be necessary
before realizing mental practice benefits.
4. Mental practice effects are associated primarily with the cognitive elements
of a task, rather than the motor elements.
5. There seem to be optimal time lengths and trial frequencies for mental
practice sessions; cognitive tasks seem to require less time and fewer trials than
motor tasks.
6. Mental practice is useful with a wide variety of subjects, and guided rather
than rigid instruction seems preferable.
7. Imaging ability, as measured by paper-and-pencil tests of imagery vividness
and controllability (Betts, 1909; Gordon, 1949), appears to be related to mental
practice effectiveness, although some researchers have found a nonsignificant
relationship (Morgan, 1983; Start, 1964; White, Ashton, & Lewis, 1979).
8. The importance of knowledge of results is as yet undetermined. Zecker
(1982) found that mental practice of a beanbag toss was superior to physical
practice with the lights extinguished just after release of the bag (denial of
knowledge of results) and suggested that knowledge of results was not always
essential for improved performance. Mendoza and Wichman (1978) found that
simulating a dart toss was as effective as mental practice of the toss. Researchers
in a recent study (Ryan, Blakeslee, & Furst, 1986), however, found no significant
differences between a control and three forms of mental practice (pure mental
practice, simulated tosses, and actual tosses with subjects blindfolded).
The investigation of mental practice has not been restricted to just sports
psychologists. Positive mental practice effects have been observed in teaching
laboratory measuring techniques (Beasley, 1979), arc welding (Hackler, 1971),

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIV on March 22, 2015
 JRME 189
counseling skills (Baker, Johnson, Kopala, & Strout, 1985), and cardiopul-
monary resuscitation skills (Mandel, 1983).
Rubin-Rabson (1941), perhaps the first music researcher to investigate mental
practice, found mental practice overlearning superior to physical practice
overlearning in retention of memorized keyboard music. Ross (1985) conducted
probably the first mental practice study in music to parallel work that had
occurred in sports. Using college trombonists, he found that the alternating
mental/physical practice group was comparable to the physical practice group.
Ross provided pioneer mental practice research in music, but he did not control
for either the effects of pretesting or the actual amount of practice time, nor did
he address the relationship between knowledge of results and mental practice.
In the study described in this article, the author examined the effects of three
types of practice and aural knowledge of results on improving piano perform-
ance. An attempt was made to control for the nuisance variables of pretesting
and total practice time.

METHOD

Experimentaldesign. The pretest-posttest control group design described by

Campbell and Stanley (1966) was altered so that the pretest and posttest used
comparable but not identical material. Two halves of a chordal piano composi-
tion were rotated between pretest and posttest placement; half the subjects in a
given treatment condition saw the first half of the composition as the pretest and
the second half of the composition as the posttest, while the remaining subjects
saw the halves in the reverse order. The rationale behind this decision was to
reduce the threat of internal invalidity due to the interaction of testing and
treatment.
Four types of practice were used: physical, mental, alternating physical/
mental, and a motivational control. These practice conditions were crossed with
the presence or absence of knowledge of results, resulting in eight treatment
conditions (see Table 1).
Subjects. The subjects, students at a major midwestern university, were
volunteer graduate and undergraduate music education and music therapy
majors (N = 80, 40 males, 40 females) whose major performing medium was not
a keyboard instrument, but who had completed at least two semesters of group

Table 1
TreatmentGroups

Group Practice mode

A Physical practice with knowledge of results
B Physical practice without knowledge of
results
C Mental practice with knowledge of results
D Mental practice without knowledge of results
E Alternating physical and mental practice with
knowledge of results
F Alternating physical and mental practice
without knowledge of results
G Reading an article on sight-reading with
knowledge of results
H Reading an article on sight-reading without
knowledge of results

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIV on March 22, 2015
190 COFFMAN
pianostudy.Ages ranged from 18 to 50 years,with a mean of 23.05 years.Piano
experience ranged from 1 to 13 years, with a mean of 4.41 years.
Materials.A computer program in AppleSoft Basic was written by the
experimenter to lead subjectsthrough the experiment at their own pace, yet
regulatethe amount of time that subjectscould view the musicon the computer
monitorduring each trial.The programwasthen tailoredto reflectthe demands
of each of the eight treatmentconditions.
The visual presentationof stimuliconsistedof a simple eight-measure,four-
partchordalcompositionin B-flat,using I, IV, V7, and ii chordsin root position
and first inversion. The composition was adapted from a hymn for children
(Burow, 1980) and divided into two four-measuresections of 15 comparably
difficultchords.
The audio presentationof the stimuliconsistedof tape-recordedmetronome
clicksand/or taped performances(M.M.= 40) of the piano composition.Three
formatswere used, each presentingsix 30-second practicetrialswith 5 seconds
of silence between each trial. One format consistedof six presentationsof half
the composition.The second formatconsistedof three sectionsof tape-recorded
metronomeclicksinterspersedwith three presentationsof half the composition.
The third formatconsistedof 210 seconds of tape-recordedmetronomeclicks.
A paper-and-pencilimagery vividness scale consisting of four sections (five
items per section)from the Sheehanversionof the BettsQMIVividness ofImagery
Scale(Richardson,1969)wascreatedto assesshow vividlysubjectsimagined.The
sectionswerecategorizedby type of images(visual,auditory,tactile,or kinesthet-
ic). Each item asked the subjectto form a particularmental image and evaluate
the vividnessof that image on a scale of 1 ("Perfectlyclear and as vivid as the
actualexperience")to 7 ("No image present at all, you only 'know'that you are
thinkingof the object").Summingthe 20 item scores resultedin a total score;a
low score reflectedstrong imageryvividness.
Procedure. The 40 subjectsassignedto one of the conditionsrequiringmental
practicewere first asked to complete the Betts imagerytest. For the pretest,all
subjectssat in front of an Akai AX80 synthesizerand an Apple II+ computer.
Subjects sight-read a composition (the first or second half of the stimulus
composition)on the synthesizer,playing straight through the compositionas
rapidlyas they could, continuingto playif they made a mistakeand not stopping
to correcterrors. Upon completingthe pretest,subjectspresseda computerkey
to advancethe program to the practicetrials.
Subjectsin the physical practice treatments then practiceda four-measure
chordalpiano composition(not the half of the stimuluscompositionseen during
the pretest,but the other half of the stimuluscomposition,whichwasused as the
posttest)on the synthesizerfor six trials, with a 5-second rest period between
each trial. Group A subjectsmaintainedthe appropriatetempo by listening to
recordedmetronomeclickson a SuperscopeC-90 variable-speedcassetteplayer,
and they aurally monitored their performancevia the synthesizer,which was
connected to a Fender BassmenTen amplifier.Group B subjectsalso practiced
the posttest composition on the synthesizerfor six trials, but the power was
turned off. They listened to metronome clicks but were not able to aurally
monitor their practice.
Subjectsin the mental practicetreatmentswere asked to imaginethemselves
playing the posttest composition six times. Group C subjectslistened to tape-
recorded performancesof the composition.They were instructedto mentally
see and feel themselvesplayingalong with the recording,keepingtheir hands in
their laps and refrainingfrom any physicalmovementof their handsor fingers.
As in the physicalpracticetreatments,a 5-second rest separatedeach practice
trial.Strictlyspeaking,these audiotaperecordingswere models and not actually
"knowledgeof results."Group D subjectsdid not hear a tape recordingof the

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIV on March 22, 2015
 JRME 191

composition but mentally practiced to the metronome clicks. They were instruct-
ed to mentally see, feel, and hear themselves playing the synthesizer.
Subjects in the alternating physical/mental practice treatments first physically
practiced the composition and then mentally practiced it; this alternating of
practice modes continued for a total of six trials (three trials per practice mode).
Group E subjects heard themselves play the synthesizer on the physical practice
trials and listened to a tape-recorded performance during the mental practice
trials. Group F subjects did not hear themselves during the physical practice
trials because the synthesizer power was turned off, nor did they listen to tape-
recorded performances; they only heard metronome clicks throughout the
trials.
In the "no-practice" condition, subjects read a short article about sight-reading
techniques in order to motivate them to do their best on the posttest. This article
was used in the Ross (1985) study and is an adaptation of an article by Jenkins
(1983), shortened by removing material irrelevant to the experiment. To achieve
a balanced block design, Group G subjects heard (as they read) six repetitions of
the posttest composition that had been practiced by the other treatment groups,
but they did not see the notation, nor were they told that they would eventually
perform the music they were hearing. In this control condition, it was necessary
for them to hear "knowledge of results," yet for the experimenter to keep the
reason for hearing the music ambiguous, lest the subjects attempt to memorize it
or perhaps mentally practice it as they read. Group H subjects did not hear any
music while they were reading, only metronome clicks.
The number and length of practice trials in each practice condition was
regulated by presenting the musical notation on the monitor for 30 seconds and
then replacing it for 5 seconds with a screen that read "GET READY TO
PHYSICALLY (or MENTALLY, depending on the condition) PRACTICE," for
a total of six trials. Subjects synchronized the audio presentation of the stimuli by
activating the Superscope tape player prior to the practice segment and
advancing to monitor the image of the notation upon hearing the 500 Hz tone
placed at the beginning of the tape. The Superscope tape player was used
because its variable speed control allowed the experimenter to maintain a tempo
of M.M. = 40.
After completing the practice trials, subjects in the practice conditions
physically played the composition they had practiced. Subjects in the control
groups sight-read the posttest composition.
Each subject completed the experiment in one 15-minute session. The
rationale behind the relatively short time durations and the small number of
trials relied on the meta-analysis of Feltz and Landers (1983). They found the
largest mental practice effect sizes (for tasks relatively high in cognitive elements)
in experiments that used six or fewer practice trials and in experiments using
trials of less than a minute in duration per trial. Using a single session controlled
for the internal threat to validity due to history, maturation, and mortality.
Data were obtained by videotaping each of the pre- and posttests using a
Quasar VK744XE Color Video Camera connected to a Quasar VP5747XE
Video Cassette Recorder. Only the hands of the subject playing the keyboard
were videotaped. Three dependent variables were evaluated: performance time
durations, the number of pitch errors, and the number of rhythm errors.
Performance time durations were obtained by (a) recording the elapsed time
placed on the videotape by the videocamera's built-in chronograph and by (b)
timing each live performance with a digital hand-held stopwatch. Pitch and
rhythm errors were independently scored by three doctoral students in music
education. To insure that any differences between the eight conditions were not
attributable to scoring bias, all evaluations were "blind"; judges could only see
the subject's hands, and they were not informed as to who was playing or

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIV on March 22, 2015
192 COFFMAN
whether the performance was a pretest or a posttest. The interjudge reliability
coefficients for performance times (r = .99), pitch errors (r = .95), and rhythm
errors (r = .86) were within acceptable limits, indicating minimal subjectivity.

RESULTS

All the statistics were run using SPSS-x (1986) programs. Table 2 shows pre-
and posttest mean scores and adjusted posttest mean scores for the three
dependent variables in each of the eight conditions. Time duration posttest
means were consistently lower than the pretest times, although the improvement
shown by both controls was quite small (approximately 2 seconds each).
Improvement in reducing pitch errors was mixed and did not appear to
correspond to the presence or absence of knowledge of results; four groups
improved slightly and four groups declined slightly. Improvement in reducing
rhythm errors was consistent throughout the eight conditions, although the
degree of improvement appeared to be small.

Table 2
ObservedPretestand PosttestMeans and AdjustedPosttestMeans
Time Pitch Rhythm
(in seconds) errors errors
Observed Adjusted Observed Adjusted Observed Adjusted
Group Pretest Posttest Posttest Pretest Posttest Posttest Pretest Posttest Posttest
PP/KR 34.89 23.31 23.89 5.70 3.60 2.65 2.31 0.93 1.05
PP/no KR 55.05 39.58 29.32 4.60 5.80 5.64 4.59 2.63 1.62
MP/KR 44.84 34.33 31.16 2.80 3.70 4.33 3.16 1.74 1.63
MP/noKR 29.21 24.20 29.75 3.20 2.80 2.67 1.99 1.17 1.45
PP+MP/KR 35.48 22.93 24.81 3.20 4.70 5.13 2.70 0.58 0.74
PP+MP/noKR 36.43 28.94 30.37 3.40 2.10 2.41 1.63 0.90 1.26
MC/KR 34.62 32.18 34.33 4.70 4.10 3.76 2.14 1.65 1.80
MC/noKR 34.81 32.40 34.30 3.70 4.70 4.89 2.24 1.26 1.30
Note.PP = physicalpractice,MP = mental practice,PP+MP = alternatingphysicaland
mentalpractice,MC = motivationalcontrol,KR = knowledgeof resultspresent,no KR =
knowledgeof resultsabsent.

Adjusted posttest mean scores were needed in order to make meaningful

comparisons of the practice effects, because the treatment groups did not begin
the experiment with the same skill level (e.g., pretest time duration means varied
from 29.21 to 39.58). Table 2 shows that some means were raised, while other
means were lowered, corresponding to their position above or below the overall
pretest mean.
The investigator employed multivariate and univariate analyses of covariance
(MANCOVA and ANCOVA) procedures to statistically control for preexisting
group differences. Pretest means and subject piano experience, which had
significantly correlated with time duration (r = -.59) and the number of pitch
errors (r = -.37), were used in the analysis. The overall MANCOVA, which
looks for significant differences anywhere in the total experiment, yielded
nonsignificant results for practice and knowledge of results. Two-way univariate
ANCOVAs (see Table 3) revealed that time duration was the only dependent
variable with significant differences among treatment conditions, the source of
the variation being practice effect.

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIV on March 22, 2015
 JRME 193
Table 3
Two-WayAnalysesof Covariance
Time duration
Sum of Mean
Source squares df square F
Practice 699.76 3 233.25 3.34*
KR 113.16 1 113.16 1.62
Practice x KR 189.48 3 63.16 0.90
Within 4888.13 70 69.83

Pitch errors
Sum of Mean
Source squares df square F
Practice 8.07 3 2.69 0.16
KR 0.07 1 0.07 0.00
Practice x KR 93.65 3 31.22 1.82
Within 1199.56 70 17.44

Rhythmerrors
Sum of Mean
Source squares df square F
Practice 3.95 3 1.32 0.66
KR 0.20 1 0.20 0.10
Practice x KR 4.05 3 1.35 0.68
Within 139.65 70 2.00
Note. KR = knowledge of results.
*p < .05.

Admittedly, the lack of significance in the overall MANCOVA coupled with

one significant ANCOVA could mean that random variation is responsible for
the apparent effect of practice on time duration, but post hoc analysis via a
Tukey test revealed that all three practice conditions differed significantly from
the control condition. In addition, the physical practice and physical/mental
practice groups were significantly greater (i.e., they achieved greater improve-
ment in reducing the amount of time needed to play the passages) than the
mental practice group but not significantly different from each other (see Table
4).

Table 4
TukeyTest of the Practice Variable Using Time Duration AdjustedPosttestMeans
Group
Adjusted Means PP PP+MP MP MC
PP 26.60 0.99 3.86** 7.72**
PP + MP 27.59 2.87* 6.73**
MP 30.46 3.86**
MC 34.32
*p < .05.
**p < .01.

Note. PP = physical practice, PP + MP = alternating physical and mental practice, MP =

mental practice, MC = motivational control.

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIV on March 22, 2015
194 COFFMAN
Pearsoncorrelationswere performedbetween the three dependent variables
and the five subjectimageryscores from the Betts test (the overallscore and the
auditory,visual,tactile,and kinestheticsubtestscores).Imageryscoreswere not
significantlyrelatedto performancescores,except for time duration,whichwas
relatedto the auditorysubtestscore (r = .31) and the overallimageryscore (r =
.31).
DISCUSSION

All three practice modes, when compared to a no-practicecontrol, were

effectivein improvingpiano performanceskillas measuredby an increasein the
speed with which subjectscould play a short chordal piano work after a brief
period of rehearsal.Modes using physicalpractice,alone or in alternationwith
mentalpractice,were superiorto exclusivementalpractice.The use of alternat-
ing physicaland mental practice was no less effective than exclusive physical
practice.
It should be noted that posttest performancetime means were slower than
what might be considered ideal. An informalcheck of time durationsachieved
by five piano majors(playingthe compositionsat a tempo they consideredto be
"appropriate")yielded a performance time average of approximately11 sec-
onds; adjusted posttest means in the experiment ranged from 23.89 to 34.33
seconds. Resultsof the experiment showed that the variouspracticeconditions
were effective in bringing the performancescloser to acceptabletempos.
In this investigation,the practiceprocedures that the subjectsused did not
resultin significantlyreducing the numberof pitch or rhythmerrors.Although
these results were unexpected, a few suggestionscan be made that might help
explain the findings.
It is possiblethat the difficultyof the piano work(or the level of experienceof
the subjects)was such that only a nonsignificantamount of improvementcould
be achievedafter six practicetrials.There were 60 notes to playcorrectlyon both
the pre- and the posttest;subjectsmissedan averageof 3.91 notes on the pretest
and 3.85 notes on the posttest,in each caseabout6%of the total.It is conceivable
that some type of "ceiling effect" occurred; subjectswere possibly unable to
greatly reduce the number of pitch errors in the time permitted.Using easier
materialor increasing the number of trials might have permitted subjectsto
reacherrorlessperformancesand might have yielded significantresultsin pitch
and rhythm error production.
It is possiblethat requiringsubjectsto practicestraightthrough the workwith
a metronome,without a chance to concentrateon troublesomespots, hindered
their abilityto make the necessarycorrections.Some subjectscommented that
they had difficultyin keeping up with the metronome;others remarkedthat
they would have preferred not to startat the beginningof the compositioneach
time. Although the structuredpracticetrials were necessaryto control for the
amount of practice time, the rigidity of the procedures may have hampered
progress.Also, the experimentused massedpractice,whichresearchhas shown
to be inferiorto distributedpractice(Duerksen,1972).The three practicemodes
might have different results under distributedpracticeconditions.
The lackof familiaritywith mental practiceprocedurescould have hampered
the subjects'progress. This would not, however,explain the lack of significant
improvementby the physicalpracticegroups.
The presence or absence of aural knowledge of results did not make a
significantdifference, which supported the findings of Zecker(1982) but was
contraryto the findings of Ryan, Blakeslee,and Furst (1986). The finding was
also unexpected,and perhapscan also be explainedby the difficultyof the piano
workexceeding the abilityof the subjectsto makesignificantimprovement.The

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIV on March 22, 2015
 JRME 195
positive (although limited) significant correlations between performance scores
and imaging ability scores suggests that investigators interested in mental
practice techniques should not ignore this possible relationship.
In general, the findings demonstrated that physical practice was necessary for
superior psychomotor skill improvement. This is not surprising. It is interesting
to note that mental practice alone was superior to no practice, and that
incorporating mental practice with physical practice did not significantly reduce
the effects of physical practice. Clearly, more research is needed before any
assertions about the efficacy of mental practice can be made with confidence.
Several mental practice issues were not addressed in this study. In further
research, experimenters could: (a) increase the length of the treatment condition
to approximate the length of a typical practice session, (b) compare mental
practice effects using stratified ability levels, (c) use various levels of music, from
easy to difficult, (d) allow more latitude in the manner of practice to address
individual learning styles, yet monitor duration and number of trials (e.g., have
subjects keep a written log), (e) make use of longer mental practice training
sessions, and (f) conduct longitudinal studies of mental practice effects.

REFERENCES

Baker, S. B., Johnson, E., Kopala, M., & Strout, N. J. (1985). Test interpretation
competence: A comparison of microskills and mental practice training. Counselor
Educationand Supervision, 25, 31-34.
Beasley,W. F. (1979). The effect of physicaland mental practiceof psychomotorskillson
chemistrystudent laboratoryperformance.Journalof Researchin ScienceTeaching,16,
473-479.
Betts, G. H. (1909). The distribution andfunctionsof mentalimagery.New York: Teachers
College, ColumbiaUniversity.
Bilodeau, I. M. (1969). Information feedback. In E. A. Bilodeau (Ed.), Principlesof skill
acquisition(pp. 255-285). New York: Academic.
Burow, D. R. (1980). I want to be a helper. In God'speoplesongbook (p. 19). Minneapolis,
MN: Augsburg.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designsfor
research.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Corbin, C. B. (1972). Mental practice. In W. P. Morgan (Ed.), Ergogenicand muscular
performance (pp. 93-118). New York: Academic.
Duerksen, G. L. (1972). Teachinginstrumental music.Washington, DC: Music Educators
NationalConference.
Feltz, D. L., & Landers, D. M. (1983). The effects of mental practice on motor skill
performanceand learning: A meta-analysis.Journalof SportPsychology, 5, 25-57.
Gordon, R. (1949). An investigationinto some of the factorsthat favor the formationof
stereotypedimages. BritishJournalof Psychology, 39, 156-167.
Green, B., with Gallwey,W. T. (1986). Theinnergameof music.Garden City, NY: Anchor
Press/Doubleday.
Hackler,C. M. (1971). An experimentalstudy of the relativeeffectivenessof practiceand
mental practice on the learning of a selected psychomotortask. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 32, 5584A.
Jacobson, E. (1930a). Electricalmeasurements of neuromuscularstates during mental
activities.I. Imagination of movement involving skeletal muscle. American Journalof
Physiology, 91, 567-608.
Jacobson, E. (1930b). Electricalmeasurements of neuromuscularstates during mental
activities. II. Imagination and recollection of various muscular acts. AmericanJournal of
Physiology, 94, 22-34.
Jacobson, E. (1930c). Electricalmeasurements of neuromuscularstates during mental
activities.III. Visual imagination and recollection.American
Journalof Physiology,95,
694-702.
Jacobson, E. (1930d). Electricalmeasurements of neuromuscularstates during mental
activities.IV. Evidenceof contractionof specificmusclesduring imagination.American
Journalof Physiology, 95, 703-712.

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIV on March 22, 2015
196 COFFMAN

Jacobson, E. (1931). Electrical measurements of neuromuscular states during mental

activities. V. Variation of specific muscles contracting during imagination. American
Journal of Physiology,96, 115-121.
Jenkins, H. (1983, February). Techniques for better sight-reading. The Instrumentalist,
37(7), 42-44.
Kohler, W. (1925). The mentalityof apes. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Kohut, D. L. (1985). Musical performance:Learning theoryand pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Leonhard, C., & Colwell, R. (1976). Research in music education. Bulletin of the Councilfor
Researchin Music Education, 49, 1-30.
Mandel, L. S. (1983). The effects of videotape instruction on the initial learning of
cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills under varying conditions of mental and physical
practice. DissertationAbstractsInternational,44, 80A.
Mendoza, D., & Wichman, H. (1978). Inner darts-Effects of mental practice on
performance of dart throwing. Perceptualand Motor Skills, 47, 1,195-1,199.
Morgan, R. 0. (1983). Mental practice, skill level, and acquisition of motor skill. Dissertation
AbstractsInternational,44, 1735A.
Oxendine, J. B. (1984). Psychology of motor learning (2nd ed.). Englewood-Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 280-299.
Rainbow, E. (1973). Instrumental music: Recent research and considerations for future
investigations. Bulletin of the Councilfor Researchin Music Education, 33, 8.
Richardson, A. (1967a). Mental practice: A review and discussion (Part I). Research
Quarterly,38, 95-107.
Richardson, A. (1967b). Mental practice: A review and discussion (Part II). Research
Quarterly,38, 263-273.
Richardson, A. (1969). Mental imagery.New York: Springer.
Ristad, E. (1982). A soprano on her head. Moab, UT: Real People.
Ross, S. L. (1985). The effectiveness of mental practice in improving the performance of
college trombonists (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University,
1985). DissertationAbstractsInternational,46, 921A.
Rubin-Rabson, G. (1941). Studies in the psychology of memorizing piano music. VI. A
comparison of two forms of mental rehearsal and keyboard overlearning. Journal of
EducationalPsychology,32, 593-602.
Ryan, E. D., Blakeslee, T., & Furst, D. M. (1986). Mental practice and motor skill learning:
An indirect test of the neuromuscular feedback hypothesis. InternationalJournalof Sport
Psychology,17, 60-70.
Sandor, G. (1981). On piano playing. New York: Macmillan.
Sidnell, R. G. (1981). Motor learning in music education. In R. A. Choate (Ed.),
Documentaryreportof theAnn ArborSymposium(pp. 28-35). Reston, VA: Music Educators
National Conference.
SSPS, Inc. (1986). SPSS-x Users Guide (2nd ed.). Chicago: Author.
Start, K. B. (1964). Kinesthesia and mental practice. ResearchQuarterly,35, 316-320.
Tolman, E. C. (1934). Theories of learning. In F. A. Moss (Ed.) ComparativePsychology(pp.
347-408). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Vandell, R. A., Davis, R. A., & Clugston, H. A. (1943). The function of mental practice in
the acquisition of motor skills. Journal of GeneralPsychology,29, 243-250.
Washburn, M. F. (1916). Movementand mental imagery.Boston: Houghton.
Weinberg, R. S. (1981). The relationship between mental preparation strategies and motor
performance: A review and critique. Quest, 33, 195-213.
White, K. D., Ashton, R., & Lewis, S. (1979). Learning a complex skill: Effects of mental
practice, physical practice, and imagery ability. InternationalJournal of SportPsychology,
10, 71-78.
Zecker, S. G. (1982). Mental practice and knowledge of results in the learning of a
perceptual motor skill. Journal of SportPsychology,4, 52-63.

October 17, 1990

Downloaded from jrm.sagepub.com at MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIV on March 22, 2015