Papers for
digital instrument developers
Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.
Bowed-string model improves control of violin bow force and motion
Learned Bow Control on a Measured Bowed-String Model: a Revised Minimum-Bow-Force Law, a Recurrent Controller, and the Domain of a Supervision Ceiling
Abstract: A finite-difference bowed-string model with implicitly resolved Stribeck friction is presented, with a regime diagnostic, the Schelleng bow-force limits on four strings, and a comparison of learned bow controllers. Implicit resolution is necessary, and quantitatively so: a lagged contact force cannot capture the string on a discrete grid, so no stick phase forms at any bow force. With friction, impedance and quality factor taken from published measurement rather than fitted, all four strings return a stick fraction of 89.1% against an ideal 90%. Schelleng's maximum bow force is recovered on every string. The minimum is not: it follows $Z v_b β^{-1}$ rather than the predicted $Z^2 v_b β^{-2}$, reducing both squared dependences to first powers. Six controllers at matched capacity, over four strings and twenty seeds each, place a gated recurrent network ahead of a feedforward one, by most under a mid-stroke disturbance. The feedforward network completes more strokes only from a start the model's own playability map places outside the Helmholtz region. A minimal gated variant fails because gates computed from the input alone cannot clear a latched state. Training loss selects neither the capacity nor the context length, and no learned controller improves on the lookup rule that generated its labels. That bound has a domain. Regressing the controller's score on the rule's gives a slope of 0.32, more than ten standard errors below unity, so the controller overtakes the rule where the rule fails and is bounded by it where it holds. Under a rigid finger stop the plant is provably invariant, so transfer loss between pitches belongs to the controller alone and is traced to one feature. A regime classifier without a stick test labels small-amplitude periodic slipping as Helmholtz motion, and a harmonicity measure rates a string the bow never grips above Helmholtz motion.
Co-designing drum gesture controls improves musician performance balance
Rescuing Performance from the Demo: Co-Designing Drum Gesture Mappings with a Percussionist
Abstract: Augmenting instruments with sensors and neural network mappings is a well-explored digital musical instrument design approach. While augmentations can create new expressive opportunities, they also exert aesthetic influence and can constrain musicians' gestural language, which, if left unchecked, can lead to technological capture. To examine this, we conducted a study with a professional percussionist, co-developing a gesture mapping toolkit and recording a ten-track album. Drawing on the concept of productive dissonance, our study aimed to hold the musician's aesthetic in tension with technological constraints. This, along with a practice-based reflective approach, supported the development of a continuous gesture recognition method for percussive mapping and surfaced insights into the design process. We identify knowing-when as a form of tacit knowledge that supported productive dissonance, and raise an open question: absent a musician's broader social context, how do we know whether a technology's influence is genuinely supporting their practice?