The Importance of Parameter Mapping in Electronic Instrument Design
Open accessAbstract
This paper presents a review of a series of experiments which have contributed towards the understanding of the mapping layer in electronic instruments. It challenges the assumption that an electronic instrument consists solely of an interface and a sound generator. It emphasises the importance of the mapping between input parameters and sound parameters, and suggests that this can define the very essence of an instrument. The terms involved with mapping are defined, and existing literature reviewed and summarised. A model for understanding the design of such mapping strategies for electronic instruments is put forward, along with a roadmap of ongoing research focussing on the testing and evaluation of such mapping strategies.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
It has long been suggested that relationships involving higher cardinalities (many-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many) should be preferred especially when several musical parameters are exposed by the sound production unit.
“However it has been long been suggested [29] that relationships involving higher cardinalities (many-to-one, one-to-many, many-tomany) should be preferred especially when several musical parameters are exposed by the sound production unit.”
From Hands-Free Accessible Digital Musical Instruments: Conceptual Framework, Challenges, and Perspectives (2020) · cites this paper as [29]
In “Future Discussion of Mapping” (page unavailable), the paper calls for better-designed mappings than simple one-to-one relationships; “Focusing on the Effect of Mapping Strategies” reports favorable responses to a many-to-many mapping. The copy does not specifically recommend each listed cardinality or say that such mappings should be preferred especially when a sound-production unit exposes several musical parameters. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHigher cardinality relationships have been shown to be more rewarding and intuitive for musical interaction and to provide more expressive control, possibly at the expense of longer learning times.
“These relationships, which are typical of most acoustic instruments, have been shown to be more rewarding and intuitive for musical interaction and to provide more expressive control, possibly at the expense of longer learning times [29].”
From Hands-Free Accessible Digital Musical Instruments: Conceptual Framework, Challenges, and Perspectives (2020) · cites this paper as [29]
In “Focusing on the Effect of Mapping Strategies” (page unavailable), users found many-to-many mappings appealing but said they required effort to master; the paper also contrasts quickly learned one-to-one mappings with complex mappings that need practice for expressive output. In the Figure 4 discussion (page unavailable), users described the multiparametric interface as expressive, but most initially found it counter-intuitive. The claim’s unqualified description of higher-cardinality relationships as more intuitive is therefore not supported. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredUsability experiments in DMI design have shown that incorporating energy into the mapping provides a more engaging natural instrument and a tighter connection of the performer to it.
“Usability experiments in DMI design [29] have shown that incorporating energy into the mapping provides a more engaging natural instrument and a tighter connection of the performer to it.”
From Hands-Free Accessible Digital Musical Instruments: Conceptual Framework, Challenges, and Perspectives (2020) · cites this paper as [29]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 8 · Cited by 274
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- [4]4. Hunt, A. Radical User Interfaces for Real-time Musi- cal Control. DPhil thesis, University of York, UK. (1999)
- [5]5. Hunt, A. and Wanderley, M. M. (eds.) Mapping of Control Variables to Musical Variables. Interactive Sys- tems and Instrument Design in Music Working Group. (2000) Website: http://www.notam02.no/icma/interactivesystems/mapping.html
- [6]6. Hunt, A., and Kirk, R. Mapping Strategies for Mu- sical Performance. In M. Wanderley and M. Battier (eds.) Trends in Gestural Control of Music. IRCAM -Centre Pompidou. (2000)
- [8]8. Garnett, G., and C. Goudeseune. Performance Factors in Control of High-Dimensional Spaces. In Proc. of the 1999 International Computer Music Conference. San Francisco, CA: International Computer Music Associa- tion, pp. 268 -271. (1999)
- [9]9. Métois, E. Musical Sound Information: Musical Gestures and Embedding Systems. PhD Thesis. MIT Media Lab. (1996)
- [10]10. Mulder, A., S. Fels, and K. Mase. Empty-Handed Gesture Analysis in Max/FTS. In Kansei, The Technol- ogy of Emotion. Proceedings of the AIMI International Workshop, A. Camurri (ed.) Genoa: Associazione di Informatica Musicale Italiana, October 3-4, pp. 87-91. (1997)
- [15]15. Wanderley, M. M., and Depalle, P. Contrôle ges- tuel de la synthèse sonore. In H. Vinet and F. Delalande (eds.) Interfaces Homme-Machine et Creation Musicale - Hermes Science Publishing, pp. 145-163. (1999)
- [16]16. Wanderley, M. M. (ed.) Interactive Systems and Instrument Design in Music Workgroup. (2000) Web- site: http://www.notam02.no/icma/interactivesystems/wg.html
- [17]17. Wanderley, M. M. Performer-Instrument Interac- tion. Application to Gestural Control of Sound Synthe- sis. PhD Thesis. University Paris VI, France. (2001)
- Authors
- Hunt, A., Wanderley, M. M., & Paradis, M.
- Affiliations
- McGill University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Wanderley, Marcelo M.
- Venue
- Journal of New Music Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-12-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 429-440
- ISSN
- 0929-8215 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1978122678
- Cited by
- 274
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 11.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of New Music Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Music Technology and Sound Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Music › Musicology and Musical Analysis
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sound Studies and Aurality
- Keywords
- parameter mapping, electronic musical instruments, instrument design, sound production, interface design, mapping strategies, instrument evaluation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
