Putting practice under the microscope: The perceived uses and limitations of slow instrumental music practice

Abstract

Practicing slowly is a commonly used, intuitive approach to music learning, and is widely considered the bedrock of musical skill acquisition. Yet, little is known about the different approaches and techniques musicians use when practicing slowly. This study investigated instrumental musicians’ perspectives on the uses, limitations, and specific techniques of slow music practice, through qualitative thematic analysis of responses to an online questionnaire. Generally, slow practice was perceived as a useful, and often necessary, part of learning. Furthermore, we identified four perceived functions of slow practice. They were managing information load; building a foundation for motor learning; creative and critical problem-solving; and regulating emotional, mental, and perceptual states. We propose a possible underlying mechanism of these functions: reduction of extrinsic cognitive load and stimulation of germane cognitive processes. Respondents also perceived potential technical-practical and emotional-cognitive malfunctions of slow practice, as well as possible strategic pitfalls of using slow practice. Specific techniques of slow practice included the use of tempo organization methods and strategies to complement slow practice. This provided insight into how biomechanical differences between slow and fast playing might be bridged. Findings have implications for music education and understanding the psychology of musical skill acquisition.

Keywords

slow music practice cognitive load motor learning skill acquisition thematic analysis

The secrets of fast, virtuosic music performance have captivated the interest of laypeople and researchers for many years (Furuya et al., 2015). Yet, anecdotally, elite musicians extol the virtues of practising slowly (Kageyama, 2021). As temporal aspects of motor control, and nuanced musical timing details are key to successful music performance (Repp, 1998; Ullén et al., 2015), the question of how musicians utilize slowness in practice to achieve performance goals is relevant to both psychologists and educators. Indeed, slow practice might be thought of as holding a magnifying glass or microscope to one’s playing. This is depicted in the German word for slow-motion “Zeitlupe,” literally translating as “time-magnifying lens.”

Slow practice is a common strategy in music learning (Barry & McArthur, 1994), and certain types of slow practice have been associated with musical expertise and self-regulated learning (Allingham & Wöllner, 2022). This suggests that slow practice may play a role in achieving musical excellence. Nonetheless, surprisingly little research exists on possible uses of slow practice, and its underlying mechanisms. Accordingly, qualitative research can provide a useful framework with which to understand individualistic nuances of music practice (Hallam, 1995), informing understandings of optimal practice strategies. The current study aims to explore musicians’ perspectives and approaches to slow music practice through qualitative thematic analysis of online questionnaire responses, considering possible mechanisms of slow practice in terms of cognitive load theory (CLT) and aspects of motor learning. For the current study, we operationalize the term slow practice as practising music slower than the intended performance tempo.

Cognitive load, automaticity, and flow

CLT provides a useful theoretical structure for examining mechanisms of slow practice. CLT proposes that novel information is processed through a limited capacity working memory (WM), before moving to unlimited long-term memory where information schemas are stored (Paas & Sweller, 2012). If the information load involved in learning exceeds WM capacity, information processing becomes impaired and the learner is likely to make mistakes (Lemaire, 1996). Teaching aims to promote schema building in long-term memory, involving three types of cognitive load (Owens & Sweller, 2008). Intrinsic CL describes the innate difficulty of a task, which places demands on WM. Learning music involves the interaction of many elements (rhythm, pitch, dynamics, etc.), and thus has a high intrinsic CL. Extrinsic CL describes difficulty caused by an instructional technique. Playing piano music one hand at a time reduces extrinsic CL. Finally, Germane CL consists of schema building processes, as information is solidified in long-term memory. Memorizing music, for instance, involves a high germane CL, as information schemas representing the music have to be constructed in long-term memory. These three types of cognitive load provide a structure for considering music learning.

Slowing tempo during music practice might affect extrinsic and germane CL. To illustrate, reducing tempo spreads intrinsic CL across a longer time span, thus allowing the musician greater cognitive capacity to stimulate germane CL. This may support the updating of schemas with more accurate motor plans and technical solutions to problems. In line with this reasoning, qualitative research on expert musicians has shown that slow practice is used for improving accuracy, tackling technical difficulties, solving problems (Chaffin et al., 2003; Nielsen, 2001). Thus, a possible cognitive function of slow practice is to reduce extrinsic CL and stimulate germane CL.

These CL mechanisms during slow practice may be related to the avoidance of errors. As previously discussed, slow playing likely minimizes extrinsic CL, reducing the chance of mistakes (Lemaire, 1996). This approach is connected to the idea of errorless learning; a pedagogical concept in which learners select tasks that they are able to execute without making mistakes, under the reasoning that errors impede learning (Kruse-Weber & Parncutt, 2014). Indeed, Byo and Cassidy (2008) observed this use of slow practice in music students to find an “errorless tempo” (p. 38). Errorless learning in motor tasks is thought to support implicit learning (i.e., learning without verbalizable knowledge, Wong & Lim, 2019) and may improve performance under pressure (Maxwell et al., 2001). This approach may also have a positive emotional impact on the learner and boost motivation (Pickard, 2021).

The reduction of extrinsic CL may also be seen as optimizing the difficulty of a task to match the skills of the learner. This skill-challenge optimization is a key component of achieving flow; a state of consciousness in which a person is totally absorbed in performance, experiencing effortless control (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Thus, flow states might be encouraged by slow practice through cultivating an optimal skill-challenge balance. Another key component of flow is receiving immediate feedback on progress (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). This may also be supported by slow playing, facilitated by increased time to process auditory and tactile feedback (Hay & Bard, 1984). Flow has been shown to correlate with confidence (Stavrous & Zervas, 2004), and intrinsic motivation for an activity (Martin & Cutler, 2002), and may benefit performance skills (Spahn et al., 2021). Therefore, utilizing slow practice to support flow experiences might in turn benefit confidence, motivation, and performance skills. Furthermore, the slow movement component of slow practice may induce relaxation (Niksirat et al., 2017) and encourage mindful presence in the moment such as in Tai chi (Lin et al., 2006) or the Feldenkrais somatic training method (Clark et al., 2015). Thus, slow practice might support pleasurable experiences, fostering motivation, and improving well-being (Lee et al., 2017).

Also related to CL in music practice is the degree of automaticity in motor processes. Fast movements have been associated with higher automaticity (Fujiyama et al., 2013) and therefore less conscious control and lower intrinsic CL than slow movements. Thus, slow playing might encourage conscious attention to motor skills. This might be useful when schemas in long-term memory require updating for refining technique or musical interpretation. Similarly, this approach could support memorization processes. For example, conscious attention to playing is required for establishing declarative musical knowledge as a memorization strategy (Chaffin et al., 2009). Bringing conscious attention and increased cognitive load to motor control through slow practice might enable learners to update schemas, even after initial motor learning has been established. However, directing attention toward automatized body movement has been shown to impair motor performance (e.g., Allingham et al., 2021; Duke et al., 2011; Wulf, 2013). Therefore, although utilizing slow practice to increase conscious cognition might support long-term learning, it might also cause poorer immediate performance.

Motor control in slow practice

An interesting question about slow practice is how learners transition from slow to fast playing. Research has shown that tempo may affect motor system organization in drummers (Dahl et al., 2011), pianists (Goebl & Palmer, 2008), and cellists (Winold et al., 1994). That is, changing the tempo of the music might alter the instrument technique, meaning that slow practice might not help the performer to play at a faster tempo. Furthermore, research on motor control at different speeds has shown that slow movement can be more difficult to control than fast movement (Fujiyama et al., 2013; Van Der Wel et al., 2009). Therefore, slow practice might create more difficulty for learners. As a solution to this problem, nonslow practice techniques may provide better solutions for developing fast motor control. For example, breaking the music into small sections but maintaining fast tempo (i.e., chunking; Prichard, 2017), or practising fast passages in different rhythmic patterns (i.e., rhythm variation; Hallam, 1995). Further research is needed to understand how slow practice may or may not support the development of fast instrument technique.

The current study

The current study aimed to qualitatively explore instrumental musicians’ perspectives on the possible functions and limitations of slow practice in music learning. Qualitative data for the current study were collected in an online questionnaire about slow music practice alongside quantitative rating items. The questionnaire aimed to capture a range of perspectives from a diverse sample of musicians. In a previous study (Allingham & Wöllner, 2022), we analyzed the quantitative questionnaire data. In the current article, we build on this previous work, by qualitatively considering participants’ motivations and goals of slow practice. The qualitative questionnaire data provide more contextualized, in-depth responses, and enable us to further explore perceptions of the limitations of practising slowly. The research questions were as follows:

Research Question 1: Among instrumental musicians, what are the perceived uses and limitations of slow practice?

Research Question 2: What specific techniques of slow practice do instrumental musicians perceive to be useful or not useful?

Utilizing a qualitative thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), we aimed to provide insight into possible mechanisms of slow practice, through the perspective of cognitive load theory and aspects of motor learning.

Method

Respondents

A total of 362 instrumental musicians took part in a questionnaire administered online via the platform SoSci Survey (www.soscisurvey.de). The quantitative data (analyzed in Allingham & Wöllner, 2022) were screened for completeness, uniqueness, consistency, and quality. This resulted in a sample of 256 respondents who had filled out the questionnaire to a high standard (i.e., taking sufficient time, providing a range of rating responses, and providing consistent answers across different questions). Further details of the data screening can be found in Allingham and Wöllner (2022). In the current qualitative analysis, we utilize this same sample of respondents (n = 256), based on the quantitative data screening.

Respondents were of 43 different nationalities, aged between 18 and 77 years (M = 43.49, SD = 16.44), and consisted of self-identified amateur musicians (113), professional performers (73), music teachers (32), music students (27), and “other professional musicians” (11). Respondents were from varying musical backgrounds (classical [182], pop/rock/blues [30], folk [27], and jazz [17]), and played various musical instruments (bowed strings [140], woodwind [37], keyboard [31], plucked strings [33], brass [9], percussion [5], and accordion [1]).

Materials and procedure

Five open-ended questions were analyzed in the current study (Table 1). Respondents were also asked directly if they used slow practice with a yes/no response option. The nine participants who responded “no” to this question were not asked subsequent questions about goals and techniques of slow practice (the first three items in Table 1). In addition, respondents reported basic demographic and musical background information. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Humanities, University of Hamburg, and respondents consented to the anonymous use of their data for academic purposes only. No incentives for responding to the questionnaire were offered.

Table 1.

Qualitative Questionnaire Items.

Questionnaire item	Number of responses	Number of words
Questionnaire item	Number of responses	Total, M (min, max)
Please give a short description of why you use slow practice (please give up to four reasons only).	247	6,915, 27.99 (2, 159)
If you would like to give more information about your goals during slow practice, write it here.	72	2,991, 39.97 (1, 296)
If you would like to comment further on how you use these (slow practice) techniques, please do so here.	67	5,981, 52.48 (1, 188)
Do you think there are limitations to slow practice? What can slow practice NOT help you with? In what situations might slow practice NOT be helpful? (Please give up to four reasons only).	194	2,878, 30.83 (1, 213)
Do you have any further comments on practice, slow practice, or this questionnaire in general?	75	3,471, 39.88 (1, 281)

Analysis

We carried out thematic analysis using MAXQDA software, following the six-step process described by Braun and Clarke (2006). The steps were (1) familiarizing with the data, (2) initial code generation, (3) searching for themes and initial thematic map generation, (4) revision of themes and redefinition of the thematic map, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) writing the research report. Coding was inductive, in that codes were driven by the content of the data, but were also guided by the research questions (Joffe & Yardley, 2004), and included both manifest (i.e., explicit meaning of the text) and latent (i.e., implied meaning of the text) coding (Braun and Clarke, 2006). We also aimed to take contextual factors into account (i.e., genre, instrument, and expertise) during the coding process. Therefore, for each theme, we report descriptive, quantitative statistics for the expertise (years of reported music training) and musical genre (classical or nonclassical) of participants whose responses contained the theme (Table 2). The purpose of this is to give context to the qualitative data.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Respondents Contributing to Each Theme.

Theme	Musical genre	Years of training
Theme	Classical/nonclassical	M (SD)
Managing information load	112/41	11.00 (7.74)
Regulating States	77/19	11.59 (6.35)
Building a foundation for motor learning	135/47	9.89 (7.79)
Creative and critical problem-solving	129/49	10.57 (7.76)
Strategic pitfalls	19/3	11.36 (5.41)
Malfunctions of slow practice	106/46	10.22 (7.73)
Tempo organization	74/24	12.13 (10.35)
Complementing techniques	48/17	9.42 (4.92)
Avoiding slow practice	1/3	10.50 (5.45)

The data consisted of 22,236 words in total with an average response length of 38.2 words (Table 1). The first author coded the data into 1,509 segments, which were then categorized into 46 codes relating to perceived functions and limitations of slow practice, or methods of using slow practice (step two). These codes were then organized into 13 themes. At this stage, we wished to establish intercoder agreement between the two authors to ensure that themes were clearly defined. To this end, the second author coded a 68-segment-subset of the total 1,509 data segments into 13 themes, following a coding manual. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and the coding manual was subsequently refined (see Supplementary Materials online). The resulting Cronbach’s alpha measure of intercoder agreement was >.73 for all themes, with a mean alpha of .85, indicating high agreement (Field et al., 2012). Subsequently, it became clear that some themes were not distinct from each other (e.g., a theme called using external resources was not distinct from complementing techniques) and could be combined, resulting in nine final themes (Table 2, that is, Step 4).

The nine themes were categorized into three higher-level themes: perceived functions of slow practice, perceived pitfalls of slow practice, and specific practice techniques (Figure 1). Regulating states was split into three subthemes of regulating emotional, mental, and perceptual states, whereas malfunctions of slow practice were split into two subthemes of emotional-cognitive malfunctions and technical-practical malfunctions.

Figure 1.

Thematic Map Displaying the Three Main Themes and Subthemes.

Results and discussion

Below we discuss the nine different themes, organized into the three higher-level themes (Figure 1). For each theme, the subthematic structure is displayed in a table along with data extracts as examples.

Perceived functions of slow practice

This overarching theme represents the majority of the data, encompassing information about how respondents viewed slow practice to be helpful, and their reasons for using slow practice. The four subthemes representing the perceived functions of slow practice were managing information load, regulating states, providing a foundation for motor learning, and creative and critical problem-solving.

Managing information load

The reported use of slow practice to reduce or increase information load was the second most commonly perceived function of slow practice (Table 2). This theme highlights the role of cognitive load theory in explaining how slow practice may support learning. For some, the slow practice was perceived as making playing easier or was applied to difficult or complex material to make playing more accessible. For example, the slow tempo was used to make “complex rhythms” or “challenging key signatures” (Table 3) more manageable. This implies a reduction of extrinsic CL through altering the manner (tempo) in which the task was carried out. Furthermore, as musical material became “more familiar” (Table 3), the learner was able to quicken the tempo, implying that as information moved from working memory to long-term memory, slow practice became less necessary. Respondents further reported using slow practice to avoid mistakes. They perceived errors to be harmful to learning (Table 3), or expressed fears that mistakes would become “chronic,” “habit,” or “programmed” into their playing. This supports the notion that slow practice is used to reduce extrinsic CL as a means of error avoidance. These perspectives are in line with theories of errorless learning which is said to support implicit learning processes (Wong & Lim, 2019), performance under pressure (Maxwell et al., 2001), and learner motivation (Pickard, 2021).

Table 3.

Thematic Substructure for Managing Information Load.

Subtheme Level 1	Subtheme Level 2	Example
Reducing extrinsic CL	Reducing difficulty	“Slowing the music down allows me to play difficult passages with complex rhythms or challenging key signatures. I then speed up once I am more familiar with the piece” (amateur, classical, violinist).
	Avoiding errors	“I never want to learn a mistake so I always practice slowly . . . Playing at performance tempo before you are ready only makes the mistakes permanent” (professional, classical, violinist).
Stimulating germane CL	Detail/holistic focus	“I use slow practice in order to put everything under a microscope and observe what I am doing” (student, classical, violinist).“(I use slow practice) to improve the connection between intellect, emotion, and muscle memory” (professional, classical, violinist).
	Accuracy focus	“(I use slow practice) to make sure I’m actually hearing each note and each chord properly. To make sure I’m using the right technique so the piece doesn’t fall apart when doing fast practice” (teacher, classical, pianist).

Note. CL: cognitive load.

In addition, the slow practice was viewed as enabling learners to process more details or to focus on several musical elements as they played (Table 3). Others similarly reported that they were able to focus more deeply on accuracy while practicing slowly, in line with previous findings that slow practice was used to achieve accuracy goals (Nielsen, 2001). This approach to learning appears to indicate an increase in germane CL, stimulating schema-construction in long-term memory. It appears then, that learners may adapt the effects of slow practice on CL to their individual needs.

Building a foundation for motor learning

This theme exemplifies using slow practice to build and refine motor skills and was the most commonly mentioned function of slow practice. This theme was reported in terms of improving automaticity, familiarizing with the music generally, laying technical foundations for developing fast playing, and developing motor skills such as coordination, fluency, and stamina (Table 4). Using slow practice to get familiar with new material is in line with previous qualitative findings (Chaffin et al., 2003). Furthermore, respondents generally viewed slow practice as “essential,” “necessary,” and “the only way” to build their skills and expand their repertoire. This highlights the foundational nature of slow practice. The development of automaticity through slow practice was seen as important for building fast playing skills, with some respondents believing “you can’t play something fast if you can’t play it slow” (teacher, classical, pianist). This exemplifies a use for slow practice early in learning, setting the basis for motoric memory which should later enable fast playing. The process of building motoric memory again implies construction of schemas, and therefore is consistent with the idea that slow practice can stimulate germane cognitive processes. This provides insight into how slow practice may support fast skills despite possible changes to motor organization between slow and fast tempi (e.g., Dahl et al., 2011).

Table 4.

Thematic Substructure for Building a Foundation for Motor Learning.

Subtheme Level 1	Example
Automaticity	“I also use slow practice to build towards acquiring speed, because I can’t play it fast until my fingers have memorised what they have to do” (teacher, classical, cellist).
Familiarizing	“(I use slow practice) to learn the notes and get to know the rhythm and shape of the music” (amateur, classical, violinist)
Technical foundations	“It’s the only way to cement technique” (amateur, classical, bassoonist).
Motor control	“For me, practising slowly has to do with muscle movement and technique” (amateur, pop/rock/blues, guitarist)“(I use slow practice) to hone coordination between right and left hands” (amateur, folk music, violinist).

Regulating states

This theme captures the use of slow practice to control aspects of emotional, perceptual, or mental states and was the least commonly reported function of slow practice. In terms of emotion, respondents reported that slow practice gave them feelings of ease and control while playing (Table 5). It is possible that these emotions could be brought about by reduced extrinsic CL. Furthermore, one respondent noted that practising “slowly and mindfully” (teacher, classical, clarinetist) boosted confidence when performing. Others noted that practising slowly promoted enjoyment and relaxation, in line with findings that slow movement is relaxing (Niksirat et al., 2017). Experiencing these positive emotional states during practice may support motivation to learn and well-being (Lee et al., 2017).

Table 5.

Thematic Substructure for Regulating States.

Subtheme Level 1	Subtheme Level 2	Example
Emotional	Feelings of ease/control	“(My goal during slow practice is) developing a feeling of ease and control, with focused expression, and bringing that feeling into performance tempo” (professional, classical, bass trombonist).
	Feelings of pleasure/relaxation	“Everything is simply easier and more enjoyable at a slower pace!!” (professional, classical, harpist).
Mental	Concentration/ mindfulness	“I’m trying to optimise my effort in order to be able to achieve the state of bliss, to be anchored in the present moment, kind of like meditation” (professional, classical, violinist).
	Conscious cognition	“Sometimes I use slow practising for memorisation, because you can’t simply rely on muscle memory and have to actively engage with what you are playing” (student, classical, pianist).
Perceptual	–	“Playing the music slows (sic) allows me to hear the individual phrases and bring out the music within the music” (professional, folk music, bagpipe player).

Closely connected to these emotional themes were reported changes to mental states involving concentration and mindfulness (Table 5). One respondent’s description of effort optimization, presence in the moment and experiencing “bliss” (Table 5), may refer to a state of flow. Indeed, conceptions of mindfulness and flow share overlapping characteristics and are connected to aspects of focus and concentration (Lambert & Csikszentmihalyi, 2020). This suggests that slow practice might be able to encourage flow states by allowing the learner to optimize their skill/challenge balance through manipulation of extrinsic cognitive load. Other respondents similarly reported that slow practice allowed them to “pay attention,” “concentrate,” or “focus.” As achieving focus in music practice has been described as essential to learning (Jørgensen & Hallam, 2011), this may be a valuable mechanism through which slow practice supports musical development.

Another subtheme of changes to mental states was using slow practice to encourage conscious cognition (Table 5). Playing slowly was described as allowing the learner to avoid automatic motor processes and engage conscious cognition to solidify musical material in declarative memory (Table 5). This is similar to memorization techniques described by Chaffin et al. (2009). Other comments described how slow practice enabled deep, deliberate practice, gave them time to think while playing, or allowed them to make conscious decisions about playing techniques. One musician reported using slow practice to stimulate creativity when composing, writing that playing slowly helped to “avoid standard ‘licks’ and find something new” (amateur, pop/rock/blues, guitarist). This indicates the use of slow practice to circumnavigate automatic motoric responses. Another respondent used slow practice to freshen their perspective on previously learned music, writing that even when music was learned well, practicing slowly helped “to know better the music, to get a different feeling of it” (professional, pop/rock/blues, bassist). These perspectives are in line with the idea that slowness can be used to go beyond automaticity, update schemas in long-term memory, or change musical interpretation.

The current reported increases in conscious cognition were viewed by respondents as beneficial to their creative practice. However, as bringing conscious attention to body movement has been found to impair motor performance (e.g., Allingham et al., 2021; Duke et al., 2011; Wulf, 2013), it would be an interesting topic for further research to explore whether such negative effects of attentional focus take place during slow practice. It is possible that the act of slowing down allows learners to avoid the performance degradation normally associated with increased conscious attention to movement. Further research on slow practice and attentional focus is needed to shed more light on this topic.

Respondents additionally reported that slow practice enabled regulation of their perceptual state. This was described in terms of developing a new understanding of a musical phrase (Table 5), highlighting how changing tempo can alter perceived expressive musical content. It was also reported that playing slowly could change perceptions of intonation, allowing the learner to hear more precisely, or “perceive individual notes and evaluate their quality separate from their sequence” (amateur, classical, flutist). For some respondents, slow practice additionally heightened perception of movement, allowing them to develop “clearer sensation” and to notice “areas of unnecessary muscle tension” (professional, classical, cellist). This is in line with known uses of slowness to achieve heightened somatic awareness such as in the Feldenkrais method (Clark et al., 2015), and suggests that slow practice might play a role in improving instrument technique through awareness of inefficient muscle use. These comments provide evidence that slow practice is sometimes used to find new ways of perceiving one’s playing, to improve the technique or find a new expressive intention.

Overall, the theme of regulating states indicated that instrumental musicians perceived slow practice as a useful way to regulate emotional, mental, and perceptual states to support learning. One respondent detailed how these three types of regulation may come together to create “a state of mind that is calm and in control and I really listen. It feels good and gets results fast” (teacher, classical, cellist).

Creative and critical problem-solving

This theme encompassed the use of slow practice to solve both technical and expressive-interpretative problems, requiring critical self-assessment (Table 6). The types of problem-solving reported included complex issues such as making decisions about bowing styles and fingering patterns, implying careful thought and experimentation. Working on more basic musical components such as intonation, rhythm, and sound quality was also reported. Slowness may help this kind of work by reducing extrinsic CL and giving the learner more capacity for conscious thinking. Identifying problems during slow practice was also highlighted, indicating that slowness may help to uncover problems not apparent at faster speeds. This is reminiscent of descriptions of slow practice as a magnifying glass, allowing the learner to assess their playing in greater detail. In a similar manner, slow practice appeared to help learners develop an understanding of the musical material and the techniques required. Improved musical understanding was seen as supporting interpretations, allowing the performer to “translate (the music) into a story” (professional, classical, violinist). Improved technical understanding was viewed as contributing to “proper, healthy, sustainable technique” (amateur, classical, cellist). Finally, respondents reported using creative and critical slow practice to achieve expressive-interpretative goals, such as experimenting with different expressive ideas. The extra time afforded by slow playing may help the learner to make performance decisions, whereas changing the tempo might allow the music to be seen in a new light. The slow, analytical work described in this theme is similar to the slow practice described by Chaffin et al. (2003) for solving problems and getting to know the music. This approach to slow practice further indicates that slow practice is not only about reducing extrinsic CL to make work easier, but also may support intense and concentrated practicing.

Table 6.

Thematic Substructure for Creative and Critical Problem-solving.

Subtheme Level 1	Subtheme Level 2	Example
Technical problems	Problem-solving	“(my slow practice) includes making conscious decisions about where to place the bow on the string and in the frog/middle/tip and the melding of fingers with the bow to ease technical challenges within the musical phrase” (professional, classical cellist).
	Problem identification	“(slow practice) brings out places I am not comfortable” (amateur, classical, pianist).
Developing understanding	Musical material	“I use slow practice to unpick and understand harmonic structure” (teacher, classical, saxophonist).
	Technique	“(I use slow practice) to break down and analyse the motion of each arm/hand/finger” (professional, classical, violist).
Developing expression/ Interpretation	–	“(I use slow practice to) decide on how it feels to play it and where I should put emphasis” (professional, folk music, violinist)

Perceived pitfalls of slow practice

This overarching theme describes ways in which slow practice was seen as counterproductive or suboptimal (malfunctions of slow practice), and specific practice strategies that were seen as unhelpful (strategic pitfalls). A smaller number of respondents contributed to these themes (Table 2), but these data nonetheless provide insight into potential difficulties with practicing slowly.

Malfunctions of slow practice

The perceived ways in which slow practice could malfunction were categorized as either technical-practical or emotional-cognitive (Table 7). The first technical-practical malfunction was the way in which slow practice could alter the technical requirements of the music. This was perceived as inefficient. For example, string players reported that certain bow techniques would not work at slow speeds, and that the left-hand technique would change depending on the tempo. Woodwind and brass players wrote that playing too slowly could make breath control unnecessarily difficult. Others noted that fast practice would eventually be required to learn fast playing technique, and that slow practice “doesn’t give you the speed and dexterity required” (amateur, pop/rock/blues, bassist). These views support motor skills research which has shown that slow movement sometimes creates extra difficulty (Van Der Wel et al., 2009), and that motor system organization can change depending on the speed of action execution (Dahl et al., 2011; Goebl & Palmer, 2008; Winold et al., 1994). Due to these changes in instrument technique, some respondents noted that they could not realize their expressive intentions at slow tempi. Four musicians (three jazz, one classical) noted that the intended tempo was essential for capturing the “swing” or “groove” of a piece. To these respondents, practicing slowly removed the music from its original context, making it difficult to express the music authentically. Changing musical context through tempo alteration is the same mechanism previously discussed as allowing learners to gain new perspectives. However, this mechanism is viewed here as unhelpful in determining final performance expressions. The utility of this aspect of slow practice may thus depend on the perspective of the learner.

Table 7.

Thematic Substructure for Malfunctions of Slow Practice and Strategic Pitfalls.

Subtheme Level 1	Subtheme Level 2	Example
Malfunctions of slow practice
Technical-practical malfunctions	Altering technique	“Often slow practice changes technique—this is undesirable as it means I’m learning to play a phrase in two (or more) ways” (teacher, classical, pianist).
	Altering expression	“I find it difficult to play correct articulations, dynamics, phrasing, or other factors that express emotional content at a slow tempo . . . Partially because they sound wrong and out of context” (amateur, pop/rock/blues, guitarist).
Emotional-cognitive malfunctions	Getting stuck	“Students get stuck at slow tempos. Slow practice can be conflated with never making mistakes. Making then correcting mistakes is possibly more important than slow practice” (teacher, folk music, guitarist).
	Lack of performance skills	“It is necessary to practice at full speed to overcome any nerves by reassuring yourself you are capable of performing at speed” (amateur, classical, violinist).
	Negative emotions	“(a limitation of slow practice is) Boredom! Do it too much and you will skip practice because it’s so boring” (amateur, classical, bassoonist).
Strategic pitfalls
Practicing too slowly	–	“Practice must be slow enough to allow learning but not so slow as to be too easy” (professional, classical, cellist).
Only using slow practice	–	“You can’t expect to run fast in a race if you’ve only practiced at walking speed. . .The body needs to warm up and train progressively in order to complete difficult tasks” (professional, classical, harpist).

The second subtheme of malfunctions of slow practice encompassed potential negative impacts of slow practice on an emotional-cognitive level. One problem was the possibility of “getting stuck” in a slow tempo or a slow way of thinking. For example, a folk guitar teacher felt that students who always practice slowly may come to believe that they should always avoid mistakes (Table 7). This would mean that they are unable to progress to faster tempi; hence, they become “stuck” at slow tempi. This perspective is reflected in pedagogical ideas promoting the utility of making mistakes while practicing (Kruse-Weber & Parncutt, 2014). In this view, the slow errorless learning previously discussed is seen as lacking in learning opportunities, creating overcautious students. Others expressed similar sentiments, highlighting the need to learn how to “control your mind in a fast tempo” (professional, classical, pianist). This indicates differing cognitive skills necessary for slow and fast playing. Similarly, some respondents felt that slow practice would not adequately support performance skills, as they required expansion of their comfort zone into fast playing to feel confident.

Last, some respondents experienced negative emotions during slow practice, reporting becoming bored, impatient, or losing concentration. This highlights individual differences in optimal practicing styles. Although some may find slow practice focusing and relaxing, others may feel the need to play fast to feel inspired. This is in line with previous findings that factors such as gender, expertise, musical genre, or musical instrument played may influence aspects of music practice (Hallam et al., 2012, 2017, 2020).

Strategic pitfalls

We identified two main strategic pitfalls of slow practice described by respondents: practicing too slowly and only using slow practice (Table 7). When reporting practice that was too slow, respondents referred to previously discussed malfunctions of slow practice. For example, when practicing too slow “breathing becomes impossible” (amateur, classical, bassoonist), indicating an impractical change to the instrument technique (in line with Van Der Wel et al., 2009). Another concern was that slow practice “would take away the musical expression” (amateur, classical, bassoonist), implying that the music had been removed from its authentic context. Concerns about practice being “too easy” (Table 7), may refer to the importance of finding an optimal skill/challenge balance, previously discussed in terms of flow and cultivating positive emotional states (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Further could explore if there exists a general rule for finding the optimal practice tempo to support learning. The second strategic pitfall was using only slow practice, described as the need for a balance of slow and fast work (Table 7). Others similarly described how slow practice was “only part of a toolbox of techniques” (amateur, classical, cellist). Indeed, it seems likely that many of the perceived malfunctions of slow practice could be avoided by the inclusion of both slow and fast playing.

Specific practice techniques

This theme encompassed descriptions of practice techniques, either utilizing slow practice or as alternatives to slow practice. Although the previous themes covered views about how slow practice affected learning, this theme encompassed more detailed descriptions of how practice was carried out.

Specific practice techniques mentioned were categorized into three subthemes: tempo organization, complementing techniques, and avoiding slow practice. Within tempo organization, respondents reported using gradually increasing tempo, alternating between slow tempo and the final performance tempo, and practicing at randomly ordered tempi (random tempi use was only mentioned by one respondent). They also reported using slow practice mostly in the early learning stages (46 respondents), sometimes in later stages (seven respondents), and that the nature of slow practice changed depending on the stage of learning (three respondents).

The gradually increasing tempo approach was sometimes combined with a back and forth between tempi (Table 8). One respondent described using small increases in tempo as stepping stones, moving between faster and slower speeds as needed; perhaps to consolidate learning, regulate states in the moment, or resolve problems as they arose. Similarly, the gradually increasing tempo was sometimes combined with alternating between slow and fast. For example, “increasing the metronome speed when I correctly execute the passage” but returning to a fast tempo in between each iteration of the slower tempo (teacher, classical, double bassist). A possible benefit of this approach could be using the fast tempo to assess progress and identify problems. Indeed, the alternating tempi approach was described this way, with the fast tempo allowing the learner to “measure my progress” and the slow tempo giving “time to resolve my mistakes” (amateur, pop/rock/blues, guitarist). This exemplifies how systematic use of tempo organization in practice may allow the learner to transition from slow to fast playing, with fast practice providing a self-assessment tool (cf. Byo & Cassidy, 2008).

Table 8.

Thematic Substructure for Specific Practice Techniques.

Subtheme Level 1	Example
Tempo organization	“If the music is very fast it also helps to practice playing it at increasing tempii (sic) to train my fingers. I would usually vary the tempii (sic)—up a bit, down a little, up a bit more, down a little etc.” (amateur, classical, bassoonist).
Complementing techniques	“I rate practising backwards, and I teach my pupils to do it too. So we practice the last bar, slowly; then the last 2 bars; then the last 3 bars etc. We find ourselves naturally speeding up as we reach the “practiced” last bars, so that getting up to speed happens naturally. Also, each run is satisfying, as you finish on the bit you can play” (professional, pianist, rock/pop/blues).
Avoiding slow practice	“I don’t persist with slow practice . . . I’ll much more readily give up on slow practice and spend time finding other strategies” (teacher, classical, saxophonist).

Alternating between slow and fast tempi was also described as important in illuminating biomechanical and technical changes relating to tempo. One respondent felt that incorporating fast playing into slow practice was “wise,” as “we do sometimes use our muscles differently at speed” (professional, classical, cellist). This depicts a solution to the problem of getting stuck in slow playing, through incorporating fast tempi into slow practice.

Offering solutions to the pitfall of only using slow practice, respondents described other techniques they used alongside slow practice. A particularly interesting technique was that of practicing backward (Table 8). This response illustrates an intuitive approach to connecting slow practice to faster playing. Similarly, respondents also reported using rhythm variation and chunking. These methods may address issues of becoming stuck in slow tempi by encouraging fast motor organization skills while managing cognitive load difficulties by inserting pauses into the music. Further methods reported were playing with a flexible tempo (adjusting the speed of playing to the learners’ skill level), playing faster than required so that the performance tempo would feel easier (supporting performance confidence and positive emotions), and using external resources to support practice such as using a metronome, recording device, or taking advice from others. These approaches illustrate how slow practice in combination with additional techniques can allow learners to harness the benefits of slow practice while avoiding the possible pitfalls.

Finally, a handful of respondents (n = 4) reported adopting the strategy of limiting or avoiding slow practice completely (Table 8). One respondent displayed strong negative opinions about slow practice, describing it as “detrimental to music learning” (professional, folk music, guitarist). This perspective on slow practice was rare in the current study. Nonetheless, it is useful to note that some musicians actively dislike and avoid slow practice. Further research could explore which individual factors may affect opinions on slow practice, such as musical genre, skill level, instrument played, or personality factors, and what kinds of musical goals might be achieved without slow practice.

Summary and conclusion

This study set out to investigate instrumental musicians’ perceptions of the benefits and limitations of slow music practice, and specific techniques of slow practice. Through thematic analysis of responses to open-ended questions about slow practice, we have described several possible functions of slow practice in supporting music learning, as well as malfunctions of slow practice that might hinder learning, from diverse musician perspectives. In addition, we highlighted perceived strategic pitfalls of using slow practice and details of specific slow practice techniques viewed as beneficial to learning. On the whole, the current findings show that slow practice was seen as a largely useful, sometimes essential practice method, especially when balanced with alternative approaches.

We proposed four possible uses of slow practice as managing information load; regulating emotional, mental, and perceptual states; providing a foundation for motor learning; and supporting creative and critical problem-solving. We further suggest that these uses of slow practice function through the reduction of extrinsic CL and the stimulation of germane CL (Owens & Sweller, 2008). The current findings indicate that slow practice may allow learners to optimize the balance of skill to challenge in their playing (an important ingredient of achieving flow states, Csikszentmihalyi, 1990); regulate emotional, mental, and perceptual states during practice; and support construction of schemas in long term memory (in line with CLT, Owens & Sweller, 2008). Supporting findings of Chaffin et al. (2003, 2009), our results also suggest that slow practice can promote conscious thinking for problem-solving and creative work. Further research should aim to verify these proposed functions of slow practice through behavioral measures. For example, experimental research could explore changes in CL during practice utilizing behavioral measures such as dual-task paradigms (Maes et al., 2014). We further found that learners viewed slow practice as supporting their ability to regulate their states of concentration and mindfulness. This suggests that further research into how slowness in music practice might encourage flow experiences would be useful. As flow may support motivation to learn and general well-being (Bakker, 2005; Lee et al., 2017; Spahn et al., 2021), this topic should be of interest to music educators.

We additionally reported possible malfunctions of slow practice, such as removing the musical material too far from its technical and expressive context, eliciting negative emotions, getting stuck in slow ways of playing, and failing to teach performance skills. These malfunctions may come about as a result of strategic pitfalls of the learner or teacher such as choosing a practice tempo that is too slow and using only slow practice. Finally, we reported specific practice techniques described by respondents, providing insight into how musicians may bridge slow practice with fast playing. For example, utilizing creative tempo organization approaches, and balancing slow practice with other methods. This theme provided insight into how difficulties of biomechanical organization in different tempi may be overcome in music practice.

As the current research utilized self-report data only, further research is needed to establish if the uses of slow practice reported here are observed in real practice behavior, as well as how individual differences may systematically affect practice strategies. For example, future work may investigate how the benefits of slow practice may differ depending on the instrument played, personality of the learner, and stage of learning. The current sample of musicians was diverse, allowing us to observe perspectives from different musical backgrounds. However, there was a greater number of classical musicians compared with other genres, and more string players than other instruments. This means that answers may be biased toward the background of classical string players. Indeed, our study points to the role of individual differences in optimal music practice, in line with previous findings that practice may depend on factors such as musical genre, instrument played, and expertise (Hallam et al., 2012, 2017, 2020). We found that the particular functions of slow practice might be determined by the learner’s approach and the physical constraints of the instrument. Where some musicians see benefits to slow practice, others might see limitations. The current findings can inform further research on musical and motor skill acquisition in exploring aspects of slowness and temporality in learning, and may inspire music educators to consider precise reasons for, and specific methods of employing slow practice in teaching.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-pom-10.1177_03057356221129650 – Supplemental material for Putting practice under the microscope: The perceived uses and limitations of slow instrumental music practice

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-pom-10.1177_03057356221129650 for Putting practice under the microscope: The perceived uses and limitations of slow instrumental music practice by Emma Allingham and Clemens Wöllner in Psychology of Music

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a Consolidator Grant to the second author from the European Research Council (Grant No. 725319) for the project “Slow Motion: Transformations of Musical Time in Perception and Performance.”

ORCID iDs

Emma Allingham

Clemens Wöllner

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Allingham

Burger

Wöllner

(2021). Motor performance in violin bowing: Effects of attentional focus on acoustical, physiological and physical parameters of a sound-producing action. Journal of New Music Research, 50, 428–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/09298215.2021.1978506

Allingham

Wöllner

(2022). Slow practice and tempo-management strategies in instrumental music learning: Investigating prevalence and cognitive functions. Psychology of Music, 50(6), 1925–1941. https://doi.org/10.1177/03057356211073481

Bakker

A. B.

(2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.001

Barry

N. H.

McArthur

(1994). Teaching practice strategies in the music studio: A survey of applied music teachers. Psychology of Music, 22(1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735694221004

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Byo

J. L.

Cassidy

J. W.

(2008). An exploatory study of time use in the practice of music majors. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 27(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123308322272

Chaffin

Imreh

Lemieux

A. F.

Chen

(2003). “Seeing the big picture”: Piano practice as expert problem solving. Music Perception, 20(4), 465–490. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2003.20.4.465

Chaffin

Logan

T. R.

Begosh

K. T.

(2009). Performing from memory. In Hallam

Cross

Thaut

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 352–356). Oxford University Press.

Clark

Schumann

Mostofsky

S. H.

(2015). Mindful movement and skilled attention. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, Article 297. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00297

10.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.

11.

Dahl

Großbach

Altenmüller

(2011). Good playing practice when drumming: Influence of tempo on timing and preparatory movements for healthy and dystonic players. In Williamon

Edwards

Bartel

(Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Performance Science (pp. 237–242). European Association of Conservatoires.

12.

Duke

R. A.

Cash

C. D.

Allen

S. E.

(2011). Focus of attention affects performance of motor skills in music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429410396093

13.

Field

Miles

Field

(2012). Discovering statistics using R. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.50-2114

14.

Fujiyama

Hinder

M. R.

Garry

M. I.

Summers

J. J.

(2013). Slow and steady is not as easy as it sounds: Interlimb coordination at slow speed is associated with elevated attentional demand especially in older adults. Experimental Brain Research, 227(2), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3511-7

15.

Furuya

Oku

Miyazaki

Kinoshita

(2015). Secrets of virtuoso: Neuromuscular attributes of motor virtuosity in expert musicians. Scientific Reports, 5, Article 15750. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep15750

16.

Goebl

Palmer

(2008). Tactile feedback and timing accuracy in piano performance. Experimental Brain Research, 186(3), 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1252-1

17.

Hallam

(1995). Professional musicians’ orientations to practice: Implications for teaching. British Journal of Music Education, 12(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051700002357

18.

Hallam

Creech

Varvarigou

Papageorgi

(2020). Are there differences in practice depending on the instrument played? Psychology of Music, 48(6), 745–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735618816370

19.

Hallam

Rinta

Varvarigou

Creech

Papageorgi

Gomes

Lanipekun

(2012). The development of practising strategies in young people. Psychology of Music, 40(5), 652–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735612443868

20.

Hallam

Varvarigou

Creech

Papageorgi

Gomes

Lanipekun

Rinta

(2017). Are there gender differences in instrumental music practice? Psychology of Music, 45(1), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735616650994

21.

Hay

Bard

(1984). The role of movement speed in learning a visuo-manual coordination in children. Psychological Research, 46, 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00308602

22.

Jørgensen

Hallam

(2011). Practising. In Hallam

Cross

Thaut

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 265–273). Oxford University Press.

23.

Joffe

Yardley

(2004). Content thematic analysis. In Marks

D. F.

Yardley

(Eds.), Research methods for clinical and health psychology (pp. 56–68). SAGE.

24.

Kageyama

(2021). Is slow practice really necessary? https://bulletproofmusician.com/is-slow-practice-really-necessary/

25.

Kruse-Weber

Parncutt

(2014). Error management for musicians: An interdisciplinary conceptual framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 777. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00777

26.

Lambert

Csikszentmihalyi

(2020). Facilitating or foiling flow: The role of momentary perceptions of feedback. Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(2), 208–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1578893

27.

Lee

Krause

A. E.

Davidson

J. W.

(2017). The PERMA well-being model and music facilitation practice: Preliminary documentation for well-being through music provision in Australian schools. Research Studies in Music Education, 39(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X17703131

28.

Lemaire

(1996). The role of working memory resources in simple cognitive arithmetic. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 8(1), 73–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/095414496383211

29.

Lin

M. R.

Hwang

H. F.

Wang

Y. W.

Chang

S. H.

Wolf

S. L.

(2006). Community-based tai chi and its effect on injurious falls, balance, gait, and fear of falling in older people. Physical Therapy, 86(9), 1189–1201. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20040408

30.

Maes

P. J.

Wanderley

M. M.

Palmer

(2014). The role of working memory in the temporal control of discrete and continuous movements. Experimental Brain Research, 233(1), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4108-5

31.

Martin

J. J.

Cutler

(2002). An exploratory study of flow and motivation in theater actors. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(4), 344–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200290103608

32.

Maxwell

J. P.

Masters

R. S. W.

Kerr

Weedon

(2001). The implicit benefit of learning without errors. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54(4), 1049–1068. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980143000073

33.

Nakamura

Csikszentmihalyi

(2009). Flow theory and research. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology (pp. 195–206). Oxford University Press.

34.

Nielsen

(2001). Self-regulating learning strategies in instrumental music practice. Music Education Research, 3(2), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800120089223

35.

Niksirat

K. S.

Silpasuwanchai

Ahmed

M. H. M.

Cheng

Ren

(2017). A framework for interactive mindfulness meditation using attention-regulation process. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2672–2684). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025914

36.

Owens

Sweller

(2008). Cognitive load theory and music instruction. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410701369146

37.

Paas

Sweller

(2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: Using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2

38.

Pickard

(2021). A Framework for mediating medical and social models of disability in instrumental teaching for children with down syndrome. Research Studies in Music Education, 43(2), 110–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X19855416

39.

Prichard

(2017). Music practice instruction in middle school instrumental ensembles: An exploratory analysis. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 213, 73–86. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.213.0073

40.

Repp

B. H

. (1998). Diversity and commonality in music performance: An analysis of timing microstructure in Schumann’s “Träumerei.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92(5), Article 2546. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.404425

41.

Spahn

Krampe

Nusseck

(2021). Live music performance: The relationship between flow and music performance anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 725569. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.725569

42.

Stavrous

N. A.

Zervas

(2004). Confirmatory factor analysis of the flow state scale in sports. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2(2), 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2004.9671739

43.

Ullén

Mosing

M. A.

Madison

(2015). Associations between motor timing, music practice, and intelligence studied in a large sample of twins. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1337(1), 125–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12630

44.

Van Der Wel

R. P. R. D.

Sternad

Rosenbaum

D. A

. (2009). Moving the arm at different rates: Slow movements are avoided. Journal of Motor Behavior, 42(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222890903267116

45.

Winold

Thelen

Ulrich

B. D.

(1994). Coordination and control in the bow arm movements of highly skilled cellists. Ecological Psychology, 6(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco0601_1

46.

Wong

S. S. H.

Lim

S. W. H.

(2019). Prevention–permission–promotion: A review of approaches to errors in learning. Educational Psychologist, 54(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1501693

47.

Wulf

(2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: A review of 15 years. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 77–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.723728

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB