Internet of Musical Things for Children

Full text

Internet of Musical Things for Children
Luc Nijs
Dept. of Education and Social Work
University of Luxembourg
Belval, Luxembourg
luc.nijs@uni.lu
Luca Turchet
Dpt. of Information Engineering and Computer Science
University of Trento
Trento, Italy
luca.turchet@unitn.it
Abstract—One of the musical activities that can be positively
impacted by the Internet of Musical Things (IoMusT) is music
education. However, although the IoMusT’s properties hold a
promising potential to enrich music learning processes, the extent
to which early childhood music educators and scholars have
embraced this emerging type of technology and explored their
potential is still very limited. To bridge this gap, we first survey
the relevant literature at the confluence of the Internet of Things,
music technology, and education. Then, we propose a pedagogical
framework to support designing IoMusT applications for early
childhood music education. The framework is based on five
dimensions: embodied sense-making, non-linearity, participatory
sense-making, privacy and security, as well as accessibility and
inclusiveness. Furthermore, we corroborate the framework with
a set of pedagogical scenarios showing its usage. Our study aims
to foster interdisciplinary research at the confluence of pedagogy
and music technology in an application domain, that of early
childhood music education, hitherto unexplored.
Index Terms—IoMusT, IoMusT, Early Childhood Music Ed-
ucation, Embodied Music Pedagogy, Embodied Sense-Making,
Non-linear Pedagogy, Participatory Sense-Making
I. INTRODUCTION
Expressing oneself musically is a basic and innate human
ability. For example, newborns already exhibit sensitivity to
music [1] [2], and the mother-infant interaction displays tonal
synchrony based on harmonic and pentatonic series [3]. How-
ever, according to Gordon [4], people are born with different
degrees of musical aptitude, i.e., the potential or capacity for
musical achievement. Although this potential is innate, the
child’s environment and early musical experiences determine
the degree to which this potential is actualized. Up until the
age of nine, music aptitude is believed to be dynamic and
fluctuating according to environmental influences [4]. Early
exposure to music and music instruction can play an important
role in actualizing a child’s musical potential. Therefore, it is
crucial to provide children, from early childhood (0-8 years)
on, with enriching experiences that allow them to develop
their natural musical and expressive abilities and realize their
potential for music. It is important to note that the realisation
of such potential is not a prerequisite to enjoying a musical
experience. Such enjoyment rather stems from, for example,
a balance between the child’s skills and the challenge posed
by the musical experience [5].
One way of enriching children’s early childhood musical
experiences involves using technology. Young [6] distinguishes
between everyday digital music experiences and integrating
new technologies to enhance practice. Concerning the latter,
the author further distinguishes between technologies dedi-
cated to music educational practices and ubiquitous and hand-
held technologies such as tablets. Young [7] (p. 695) also
asserts that “digital technology, where available to children,
is changing the nature of music and musical practices, partic-
ularly in family homes”, and demonstrates that technologies at
home have broadened the way in which children engage with
music.
In recent years, technologies, such as digital musical in-
struments for children, musical toys, mobile apps, digital
games, or play maths have been designed, developed and
found their way into children’s home environment. However,
according to de Vries [8], early childhood music teachers
do not adopt in the classroom the types of technology that
children interact with in their home environment. Yet, using
such music technologies could have several benefits for early
childhood music education (ECME). For example, they can
provide an alternative to traditional musical instruments that
are most often not adapted to the physical abilities of young
children and, as such, offer opportunities to nevertheless en-
gage in music making [9]. In addition, technology may support
extending conventional classroom practices and introducing
novel pedagogical approaches [10]. Research also shows that
technology integration in early childhood education (including
ECME) promotes, for example, multimodal learning [11],
student engagement and motivation [12].
Despite these benefits, technology adoption in the early
childhood classroom is still scarce [8] (see also [13] [14].
Moreover, Ling et al. [15] (p. 6334) also argue that there is
still a great necessity to investigate the use of new technologies
in early childhood education “in order to recognize and utilize
the benefits and to minimize the potential risks”.
In this paper, we aim to contribute to the advancement of
the educational use of technology in early childhood, both to
enrich musical experiences at home and in early childhood
education. We focus on a specific type of technology, namely
the Internet of Musical Things (IoMusT), which refers to
the extension of the Internet of Things (IoT) paradigm to
the musical domain. More specifically, the IoMusT relates to
“the ensemble of interfaces, protocols, and representations of
music-related information that enable services and applications
serving a musical purpose based on interactions between
humans and Musical Things or between Musical Things
2024 IEEE 5th International Symposium on the Internet of Sounds (IS2) | 979-8-3503-6652-5/24/$31.00 ©2024 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/IS262782.2024.10704214
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITA TRENTO. Downloaded on October 08,2024 at 20:14:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

themselves, in physical and/or digital realms. Music-related
information refers to data sensed and processed by a Musi-
cal Thing, and/or exchanged with a human or with another
Musical Thing”. A Musical Thing is defined as “a computing
device capable of sensing, acquiring, processing, or actuating,
and exchanging data serving a musical purpose” [16].
Although IoMusT’s properties hold a promising potential
to enrich music learning processes, the extent to which early
childhood music educators and scholars have embraced this
novel type of technology and explored their potential is still
very limited. For example, in their systematic review, Kassab
et al. [17] show that only a few studies on the educational use
of IoT address primary education (11% of the studies) and
early childhood education (3% of the studies). Yet, according
to Lechelt et al. [13], education needs to converge with recent
technological developments and provide learners with hands-
on experience with IoT, of which IoMusT is a subdomain. The
slow adoption of Io(Mus)T in education might be explained
by a lack of knowledge, intention, and understanding in
creating a learning environment that incorporates the use of
Io(Mus)T technologies for teaching and learning, as well
as the instructional designs that use such technologies [18].
Arguably, this lack concerns teachers’ “TPACK”, i.e., teachers’
ability to effectively integrate technology into their teaching
practices and enhance student learning outcomes [19]. In
addition, the difficult adoption can be related to teachers’
technology acceptance, in particular the perceived ease of use
and the perceived usefulness [20]. In our view, the perceived
pedagogical usefulness, i.e., whether a technology can be used
in a pedagogically sound and meaningful way, is a key factor
in determining its acceptance and adoption.
Therefore, to advance this exciting and promising domain,
we believe it is important to establish a pedagogical framework
that may support the design of IoMusT applications and their
implementation in early childhood music education, and as
such contribute to the perceived pedagogical usefulness of
Io(Mus)T. Currently, such a framework is lacking. In this
contribution, we propose a series of pedagogical principles
that may constitute a design and implementation framework
for IoMusT applications for young children. In addition we
propose some scenarios for the design and implementation of
IoMusT for children, which illustrate our vision.
Notably, the present study falls in the remits of the “Internet
of Musical Things and People” paradigm recently proposed in
[21]. Indeed, the proposed vision considers not only children’s
values, needs, behaviors and diversity, but also their mutual
entanglement with networked musical devices, services and
environments.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows: Section
II introduces some core aspects of ECME. Section III provides
an overview of IoMusT in ECME. Section IV proposes
a framework for an IoMusT targeting children. Section V
illustrates our vision of an IoMusT ready for children through
a set of pedagogical scenarios. Finally, Section VI provides
concluding remarks.
II. MU SI C IN EA RLY CHILDHOOD
To fully grasp the potential benefits of IoMusT in early
childhood, it is important to consider some of the fundamentals
of music learning in the early years.
First, music learning in the early years is multimodal.
Children engage with all their senses and experience music
through their sensorimotor, affective, and cognitive resources
[22] [23] [24]. Accordingly, musical interaction is not a mere
auditory experience but addresses the whole body. Precisely
the bodily experience of music opens the door to the interplay
of the senses, invoking the richness and meaningfulness of
an empowering musical experience. As such, music learning
is also embodied [25]. In addition to considering multimodal
involvement with music as addressing all senses, it is important
to note that, as Arnott and Yelland [26] argue, technologies
can be regarded as a new modality in their own right. As such,
integrating technologies into early childhood music learning,
such as the IoMusT-based ones, can broaden the multimodal
nature of music learning.
Second, music learning in the early years requires a child-
centered approach. According to Niland [27] (p.19), this
involves acknowledging the voice of the children, integrating
“what children care about, what they already know, and what
they would like to know” when deciding as a teacher on, for
example, content, materials, and activities. As such, children
are allowed to make choices, adapt, and extend the learning
content.
Third, music learning in the early years is often about
participation and collaboration. Through diverse musical ac-
tivities, such as singing with an adult, inventing music together,
or dancing, young children discover new ways to interact with
others in and through music and learn about music in implicit,
reactive, and deliberate ways [28]. In this context, the IoMusT
can play a relevant role as it is committed to connecting
musical stakeholders and to enabling new kinds of musical
interactions among them.
Fourth, music learning in the early years is active. It
involves the process of developing a sensitivity to sound by
active participation in music activities, during which children
gradually gain an understanding of elements in the music, such
as melody and rhythm, and establish a meaningful connection
with music [29]. Young children often discover music through
playful and explorative activities, such as spontaneous singing,
sound exploration, and dance [27].
III. IOTAND MUSICAL THINGS IN EAR LY CHILDHOOD
Given the above-described learning characteristics in the
early years, the potential of IoMusT to promote a rich musical
learning environment becomes clear. Within the scenario of
enhanced music learning, Musical Things (i.e., computing
devices capable of sensing, acquiring, processing, or actuating,
and exchanging data serving a musical purpose [30]) such
as smart musical instruments or music haptic wearables may
support multimodal and embodied, participatory and collabo-
rative, play-based and exploratory, and child-centred activities
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITA TRENTO. Downloaded on October 08,2024 at 20:14:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

by introducing novel forms of interactions or by digitally
augmenting existing activities.
In this section, we give an overview of existing work. Given
the scarce number of studies in the domain of IoMusT, we
start with the use of IoT in early childhood. Next, we focus
on musical things, focusing mainly on early childhood music
education.
A. IoT for children
According to Ling et al. [15], ”IoT devices could provide
the young children with opportunities to connect digital and
physical worlds for their playful explorations, help them to
build their knowledge base, arouse their interest and enthusi-
asm, and encourage them to be autonomous learners”.
In the context of early childhood, an interesting subcategory
of IoT are the IoToys. They differ from Smart Toys in that
they are connected to online/digital platforms through Wi-Fi
or Bluetooth. According to Iham¨
aki and Heljakka [31], they
have three general properties. They are:
•Pervasive: allowing to follow children through everyday
activities;
•Social: involving social aspects and multiplayer partici-
pation;
•Connected: connecting and communicating with other
toys and services through a network.
IoToys are often equipped with sensors, allowing them
to detect and capture different types of information, such
as audio and video, as well as physiological and location
records. Due to their connectivity, such information can be
collected and stored (often through connection with a cloud
server) for further use, such as exchanges through smartphone
applications. An important aspect is that IoToys can be “smart”
or “intelligent”. That is, by embedding computers and running
machine learning methods, the gathered data can be processed
(e.g., pattern detection) to make decisions and, as such, offer
personalized interactive and engaging experiences, whether
focusing on entertainment or learning. For example, when
interacting with a robot IoToy, if the child seems bored with
a certain game, the robot can suggest a new activity that the
child may enjoy more based on past preferences. If the child
is frustrated, the robot can adjust its tone and responses to be
more encouraging.
Accordingly, compared to traditional toys, IoToys introduce
augmented responsiveness and interactivity. Moreover, they
can become “teachable machines” [32] or tutees [33]. Con-
sequently, as intelligent and teachable machines, IoToys may
facilitate reciprocal tutoring.
While these aspects provide various benefits, caution is
needed regarding the datafication of children’s interaction
with toys [34]. Indeed, the fact that IoTys can track and
communicate personal, environmental, and behavioral data
raises privacy and security concerns, as they can potentially be
shared with third parties and used in unethical ways. IoToys
often connect to cloud servers, which can be vulnerable to
cyber attacks, putting user credentials, child identities, and
personal information at risk. Consequently, IoToys such as
“My Friend Cayla” or “Cloudpets” have been withdrawn from
the market (see also [35]).
While designed as toys, IoToys can also be considered
playful or tangible user interfaces, presenting a playful ap-
pearance that invites physical interaction [36]. Considering
the connectedness and sensor integration, Mascheroni and
Holloway [34] conceive IoToys as media. They can interact
with users, collect data, and provide personalized experiences,
resembling the functions of traditional media.
The review study by Ling et al. [15] indicated that IoT
devices are used at home in unstructured play activities while
at school in more structured play-based learning activities.
Many young children use a repertoire of IoToys at home.
Examples are little robots (e.g., Dash & Dot [37]), dolls (e.g.,
Hello Barbie [38]), blocks and modular toys (e.g., MakerWear
[39]), and toy-gadgets such as watches [40]. However, the
use of IoToys in educational settings is still limited or none
[41]. In addition, the suitability of IoToys for early childhood
education has not been systematically researched [31]. Yet,
according to Iham¨
aki and Heljakka [31], it is necessary to
acknowledge their potential to create opportunities for knowl-
edge building and skills acquisition in the early years.
Iham¨
aki and Heljakka [42] conducted a 6-month longitu-
dinal study with preschool children, investigating toy-based
learning and the forms of play they may prompt. To do so,
children were provided with the IoToys Wonder Workshop’s
Dash and Fisher-Price’s Smart Toy Bear. Interestingly, the
authors start from a categorization of different forms of play
(see Table I), showing how different IoToys can promote
different forms of play.
In a different vein, Miglino et al. [43] used Block Magic,
a smart environment for children and teachers that enables
children to engage in conventional play using familiar didactic
materials, specifically the classic Logic Blocks, while also
including a computer and specialised software to enhance the
level of participation.
B. Musical Things for children
In 2018, Turchet et al. [16] proposed to extend the concept
of IoT to the musical domain leading to the subfield of
IoMusT. While the concept of IoMusT has only recently been
introduced, some previously developed technologies align with
the idea of using devices that ”sense, acquire, process and
exchange data serving a musical purpose”, which is a central
tenet of the musical things in the IoMusT vision [16].
One example concerns the musical toys developed at the at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Beatbug [44] is a
handheld percussion instrument designed to promote collabo-
ration. Up to eight Beatbugs can be connected to a computer,
operating in ’snake’ mode, i.e., starting with a short rhythm
pattern that travels to another player who can manipulate the
pattern to encourage interaction and communication between
children. Several patterns can be combined [44] [45]. Musical
Shapers are spherical musical instruments made of a soft
squeezable material. By squeezing a Shaper with both hands,
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITA TRENTO. Downloaded on October 08,2024 at 20:14:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

TABLE I
DIFFERENT FORMS OF PLAY ACCO RD ING T O IHAM ¨
AK I AND
HEL JAKK A [42]
Form of Play Description
Exploratory Learning about the properties and interactions
of toys through physical skills and exploration
of play options.
Constructive Adding one’s own voice to toys to make them
more unique and making trails using pro-
gramming or coding. Toys are used to make,
recognize, and solve problems during this type
of play.
Creative Playing with toys in open-ended ways like
care-taking (e.g., playing house) or coding
(e.g., programming the toys to move) and
using other materials like art supplies to en-
courage fluency, flexibility, originality, imagi-
nation, and new connections.
Pretend, fantasy
and socio-dramatic
Role-playing, pretending with things, activi-
ties, and circumstances with toys in the imag-
ined play frame to create an episode or event.
Physical locomotor Various physical exercises for their personal
fun and toy use. In this style of play, children
learn motor skills and use toys in physical and
social play.
Language Spontaneous interactions with sounds (e.g.,
by recording one’s own voice to toys), play-
ing with rhythmic and repetitive elements of
words (e.g., coding sounds for the toys and
making the toys move with the sound). For
older children, this might involve rhyme, word
play and humour.
children can manipulate musical parameters such as contour,
timbre, density, and structure [46].
The Musical Fireflies are palm sized digital musical instru-
ments that introduce mathematical concepts in music such as
beat, rhythm and polyrhythm without requiring users to have
any prior knowledge of music theory or instruction. Through
simple controllers, the Fireflies allow users to input rhythmic
patterns, embellish them in real-time by adding rhythmic
layers, synchronize patterns, and trade instrument sounds.
Since interaction with other players increases the richness
and complexity of the experience, the Musical Fireflies also
motivate collaboration and social play.
Another example is Kibo, an interactive wooden instrument
with a simplified tangible interface that embeds a MIDI-
compatible controller to communicate with other MIDI devices
(e.g., synthesizers and sequencers) and iPhone, iPad or a Mac
(via an app) [47]. Interaction modes involve inserting and
extracting tangibles from the base and pressing and releasing
the tangibles.
While the above examples concern multidirectional com-
munication between users within a local network, IoMusT
adds interconnectivity through the internet and, thereby, the
possibility to transform situated into remote interaction. In the
domain of music education, the combination of remote learn-
ing and musical things is almost non-existent. One example is
the SYNTH4KIDS, developed by Christou [48]. Synth4kids is
a web-application designed for children from 5 to 8 years old,
involving a monophonic synthesizer based on analog synthesis
and focused on electronic sound production. The system can
be connected to devices such as LeapMotion(TM) or tactile
interfaces such as Makey Makey (TM).
IV. A DESIGN FRAMEWORK FOR IOMUS TFOR CHILDREN
As the overview of applications in music education suggests
(see Section III), their adoption in the music educational
domain is still in its infancy. This offers the chance to lay out
a framework for upcoming developments while promoting a
technology-inspired but pedagogy-driven approach. The basis
for this framework is Embodied Music Pedagogy, as proposed
by Bremmer and Nijs [49] [50] to advance the domain of
music education in line with the most recent findings in
disciplines such as pedagogy, musicology, sport sciences, or
psychology. Here, we focus on three core principles of this
educational framework, namely embodied sense-making, non-
linearity, and participatory sense-making. Taking into account
the connectivity of IoMusT through the internet, another
principle is added, namely privacy and security. Moreover,
considering the tenets of Universal Design [51], the principle
of accessibility and inclusiveness are included.
These five pillars of the framework are detailed hereinafter.
A schematic representation of our framework is depicted in
Fig. 1.
A. Embodied Sense-Making (ESM)
A core idea of Embodied Music Pedagogy is that music
learning and teaching involves a dynamic interplay between
teacher, learner, and learning content, whereby the body plays
a fundamental role in the communication between learners(s)
and teacher through/with/in sound. Communication in and
through music implies the ability to make sense of the music.
According to Leman [52], musical sense-making involves the
transformation of a stream of sounds into a meaningful musical
whole, based on the association of patterns in the sounds
(e.g. chord sequence or melody) with movement patterns (e.g.
shape, direction, energy) and thereby with the intentional states
(e.g. an emotion) that underlie these patterns.
Leman [52] proposes three basic mechanisms that shape
enactment:
•Entrainment: the process of being pulled towards syn-
chronization with the music or with others;
•Prediction: the ability to sense what comes next in the
music;
•Alignment: the ability to align one’s movements to certain
musical aspects.
As each of these mechanisms is rooted in bodily engage-
ment based on body morphology, reflexes, and a learned
movement repertoire, musical sense-making is profoundly
embodied.
The IoMusT may provide ample opportunities to address
these basic mechanisms and, as such, to contribute to the
process of finding or creating meaning in the music and
sharing that meaning. For example, Gali et al. [53], in an XR
environment, used a handheld object to decrease the degree of
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITA TRENTO. Downloaded on October 08,2024 at 20:14:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Fig. 1. A conceptual diagram of the interconnected components in our vision of the IoMusT ecosystem for children.
freedom of movement. The system was designed to improve
young children’s full-body Interpersonal Entrainment, and the
object helped the system identifying every child by a distinct
color.
B. Non-linearity (NL)
While music education is often structured in a linear way,
guiding students systematically along a predetermined learning
path, Embodied Music Pedagogy embraces non-linearity as an
important aspect of music learning and teaching. Based on the
idea that a music lesson is a dynamical system [50], learning
emerges and self-organizes through the dynamic interaction
between the learner, the teacher, and the learning content. The
dynamics of a music lesson and the process of emergence and
self-organization can be shaped through a set of constraints
(see also: [54]). There are three types of constraints:
•Individual constraints: they refer to an individual’s char-
acteristics, such as perceptual, emotional, and cognitive
functioning, or motor abilities [55]. Individual constraints
can be structural, i.e., aspects of the individual’s body
structure (e.g., length of legs), or functional, i.e., body
functions such as balance, coordination, agility, and cog-
nitive functioning (e.g., motivation, attention).
•Task constraints: they refer to the goal of a specific task,
to the feedback on the task, asking questions, or the
materials used during a learning experience [56] [57].
•Environmental constraints: they refer to the physical
factors surrounding learners, shaping or limiting their
behavior [56].
Importantly, in this view, the teacher is not seen as a mere
manipulator of constraints, but as part of the music lesson as
dynamical system [58].
IoMusT applications may provide multiple opportunities to
manipulate these constraints and thus shape emergent learning
through the process of self-organization. For example, when
integrating machine learning, IoMusT applications can learn
about individual and group behavior during a learning activity.
Consider joint walking to the music, while using an IoMusT
application to make sounds together. By altering the tempo,
structural individual constraints can be addressed, as the ability
to synchronize in a certain tempo is related to, for example,
age [59], and length of the legs [60]. In addition, functional
individual constraints can be manipulated through differenti-
ation, gradual increase of task difficulty and complexity, and
task variability [61]. Also, the IoMusT can help manipulate
task constraints by, for example, providing different types of
feedback (e.g., visual, vibrotactile or auditory) or feedback
on different music elements (e.g., level of synchronization
between learners).
Finally, the IoMusT can help manipulate the environmental
constraints. As smart devices Musical Things can, for example,
respond to the users’ actions in space (e.g., modify the sound
output based on the proximity or movement of performers),
augment the environment with auditory, visual, or even haptic
cues that guide learning and creativity, help tailor the learning
environment to suit better individual progress and challenges
(e.g., altering background tracks, tempo, and harmony based
on the learner’s performance), or create a shared musical envi-
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITA TRENTO. Downloaded on October 08,2024 at 20:14:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

ronment that transcends physical boundaries (e.g., connecting
musicians from different locations) and as such allow musi-
cians to experience and adapt to new acoustic environments
and social interactions.
C. Participatory sense-making (PSM)
Participatory musical sense-making involves participating in
each other’s sense-making of music through a shared, active
involvement in music (see [62], p. 31). It allows for the co-
creation and joint understanding of music as it develops over
time. To foster participatory sense-making, it is important to
create a close coupling and coordination between individual
learners and, as such, produce a shared context based on
intersubjective intentionality, i.e., the collective experience of
meanings [63] [64].
The IoMusT offers an excellent opportunity to create such
a close coupling and coordination between individual learn-
ers. Indeed, an IoMusT infrastructure encompasses hardware
and software (such as sensors, actuators, devices, networks,
protocols, APIs, platforms, clouds, services) that enable the
creation of an ecosystem of interoperable devices connecting
learners and teacher with each other.
D. Privacy and security (P&S)
In order for the IoMusT to be ready for children it is
paramount to address any potential risk for misuse of digital
identities, and any sort of data ascribable to a child. Therefore,
it is critical that privacy and security methods are considered
since the early stages of design of Musical Things, IoMusT
ecosystems, and applications. For this purpose, it is important
that IoMusT manufacturers rely to privacy-by-design methods
(see e.g., [65] [66]), especially to comply to the legislation on
the matter [67].
E. Accessibility and inclusiveness (A & I)
The IoMusT can also be exploited in pedagogical situations
that involve learners with, for example, visual or hearing
impairments. This is possible thanks to the so-called musical
haptic wearables [68]. These are wearable devices encom-
passing sensing, wireless communication, and haptic actuation
(such as vibrotactile motors).
In the context of visual impairments, it is possible to use the
sense of touch as a means of communication to provide musi-
cal information. For example, in [69] the authors developed a
system enabling an ensemble of visually-impaired performers
to exchange musical information related to tempo variations
(e.g., accelerando, decelerando), tempo synchronization, or
start/stop playing, and react to them. The same concept can
be used during for educational purposes.
Regarding hearing-impaired users, including those with
cochlear implants, the sense of touch can be leveraged to
provide a real-time tactile representation of the music played
or listened, thus providing a means for coping with the
auditory deficit. An IoMusT system that can be adapted to
such scenario is reported in [70].
These IoMusT systems have the potential of making music
education not only more accessible, but also more inclusive.
This is especially true in contexts of group lessons involving
both able-bodied and sensory-impaired learners.
V. ED UC ATIO NA L SCENAR IO S
In this section, we propose a series of educational scenarios
that concretely illustrate the above-described framework. The
first three scenarios concern classroom practices involving
connectivity through a local network. The fourth scenario
concerns connectivity through the internet.
For all scenarios, we devise a prototype Musical Thing that
incorporates different inertial sensors, allowing to track for
example quantity of motion, position in space. Furthermore,
we envisage an interface that allows a teacher to activate
certain presets (e.g., pertaining to a specific activity), to couple
or decouple the different devices (e.g., group in pairs or per
four, connect all, disconnect all), upload or choose backtracks
from a library. The proposed scenarios can be implemented
with current technologies.
A. Scenario 1: Sound Creation
Musical activities often involve predetermined sounds,
based on the instruments or tools that are involved. These
can be, for example, traditional instruments, Orff instruments,
or Boomwhackers®. Alternatively, children could work with
sounds they create for themselves, thereby promoting owner-
ship, and creativity.
The use of Musical Things can promote an embodied
approach by allowing children to experiment with different
aspects of sound (NL), such as pitch, loudness, and timbre,
through individual and collective movement. In doing so, chil-
dren can engage in the different types of play as proposed by
Iham¨
akki and Heljakka [31], namely exploratory, constructive
and creative play.
Consider a group of children. Each child has the envisaged
musical thing (MusT). First, children individually explore how
to modulate a soundwave through meaningful body movement
(ESM, NL). For example, by horizontally shaking the MusT,
they can modify the periodicity, and thus pitch: moving
slowly to have a low tone, rapidly to have a higher tone; by
vertically shaking, they can modify the amplitude and thus
loudness: big vertical movement for a large amplitude and vice
versa. Importantly, an inbuilt calibration system may take into
account the abilities of each child interacting with the IoMusT
(A & I).
When coupling MusTs per two, children can create a sound
together (PSM): one child modulates periodicity, the other
amplitude. Exploratory activities can be complemented with
more guided exploration or even direct instruction activities
involving, for example, the imitation of tones. Such tones
could be provided by the teacher to introduce a scale, followed
by the imitation of a melody. Or they can be provided by a
peer, and next combined into their own melody (NL).
Once children have individually explored the modulation
of tones, they can start combining their self-created sounds
and learn about how this changes the sound (PSM). Note that
wirelessly coupling the MusT to a screen or using an inbuilt
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITA TRENTO. Downloaded on October 08,2024 at 20:14:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

display might also provide the children with visual feedback
on how sinewaves change through their actions.
B. Scenario 2: Timing and Rhythm
A sense of timing and the ability to synchronize and
(re)produce rhythms within a certain tempo are important
elements of joint music-making. Integrating connected MusTs
in the classroom can address these elements and support their
development.
Imagine a group of children freely walking around (ESM),
shaking the MusT in sync with each step they take, thus
triggering a sound (they have created before). Children who
are not able to walk around, can still join and shake the
IoMusT (A & I). Next, they are invited to find a common
tempo (PSM). As soon as group synchronisation improves, a
backing track might be added based on the detected common
tempo. This can be done in different ways, for example,
by starting with some additional noise that decreases when
synchronisation improves or by adding more instruments in the
backtrack. At some point, the children’s engagement within a
certain tempo might be disrupted, inviting them to suddenly
start walking much slower and find a (slow) common tempo
again.
New tasks can be given once the children have developed
confidence in walking and stepping together. For example,
some children might only trigger a sound on the first and
third of four beats, while others trigger a sound on the second
and fourth beat. To learn about meter, loudness can be added
as a parameter. The first group might be asked to play louder
(shake the MusT harder) on the first than on the third beat,
while the other group is asked to always play softer than the
third beat (shake less). In this way, the children experience the
hierarchy of beats through body movement (ESM) and create
together a specific pattern (PSM).
C. Scenario 3: Harmony
Harmony is an essential element of music that provides
richness and depth to a melody. To help children understand
and experiment with harmony, the use of MusT can be
beneficial.
A first element in learning about harmony could be learning
about dissonance and consonance, both playing a vital role in
making music emotionally meaningful by providing a sense
of variety and motion, tension and resolution.
Imagine a group of children walking around in the class-
room. When two children are close to each other, the MusTs
are automatically activated and produce a note that is previ-
ously assigned to each MusT. In this way, and especially by
“meeting” different notes, children can experience how two
notes interact and how the resulting experience can be different
in terms of (dis)agreeableness. In a next phase, children can
be invited to “meet” in groups of three or four. In this way,
not only can chords be introduced, but children can also learn
how an original dyadic dissonance can change when notes are
added. For example, while C and D might sound dissonant,
adding F and A makes a beautiful seventh chord. All this
is possible thanks to the mediation of MusTs equipped with
the ability to identify each other and automatically configure
themselves.
D. Scenario 4: Remote activities
Each of the above-described scenarios can be translated into
online activities. Evidently, some aspects need to be adapted
when turning applications from co-located to remote settings.
For example, walking in the classroom might be omitted as
it may interfere with online interaction. However, locomotor
activities might be replaced by other physical interactions with
the IoMusT and as such maintain the embodied nature of using
the IoMusT.
While classroom activities might focus more on sound
outputs in relation to gestures, in an online music educational
scenario it might be more beneficial to use an interface that
provides visualizations. Take the example of the sine waves
(Scenario 1). This could be easily visualized in a shared online
environment. Note that, while manipulating sound waves could
be easily done with a mouse(pad), the IoT enables a more
bodily engagement and, as such, aligns with the approach
promoted by an Embodied Music Pedagogy. Moreover, re-
search has shown that users, especially children, prefer such
gesture-based interfaces as they are deemed as being more fun
(e.g., [71]).
Similarly, the extent to which users synchronize (Scenario
2) might be visually represented. For example, each user could
be represented by a specific geometrical figure, e.g., a square.
The better users synchronise, the closer they move together
until they all merge into each other. Alternatively, different
users may be represented by different visual objects, while
synchronising to a given stimulus. For each user, the degree
of synchronisation is represented by the transparency (low
sync)/opacity (high sync) of the object. Instead of using visual-
isation, feedback on synchronisation might be provided using
vibrotactile feedback. This type of feedback is increasingly
used in music learning (e.g., [72], [73]). However, to our
knowledge, it has not been implemented in a remote music
educational context. We believe this could be a promising
avenue to explore new techniques for embodied experiences
of remote togetherness, considering, for example, the work
of Shafiqul Islam and Lim on vibrotactile feedback in virtual
motor learning [74]. Especially since, in remote learning, the
absence of physical presence, non-verbal cues, and tactile
approaches in online lessons may affect learning, engagement,
and motivation [75]).
Regarding Scenario 3, users may navigate through a virtual
room (cf. Minecraft) by using the orientation of their IoMusT,
in view of meeting others. When close to each other, the
specific sound output is activated in a similar way as described
in Scenario 3.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presented a framework for the design and didac-
tic implementation of IoMusT-based pedagogical applications.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITA TRENTO. Downloaded on October 08,2024 at 20:14:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

We described a set of scenarios that illustrate how our vision
can be applied in practice.
To date, research on pedagogical activities in the IoMusT
have remarkably received less attention compared to other
kinds of technology-supported musical activities such as per-
formance or rehearsals. The present study aimed at contrasting
this trend and at providing a new perspective that addresses
the children as musical stakeholders in the IoMusT.
The proposed framework addressed some fundamental ethi-
cal issues, related to privacy and security as well as accessibil-
ity and inclusiveness. Nevertheless, other ethical dimensions
can be considered (e.g., sustainability). The ongoing efforts
on researching ethical standards for the IoMusT (see [76]) are
also relevant to IoMusT applications targeting children.
It is the authors’ hope that the present work could inspire
practitioners and developers in focusing on the design, de-
velopment and evaluation of IoMusT technologies targeting
children.
REFERENCES
[1] S. E. Trehub and L. K. Cirelli, “Precursors to the performing arts in
infancy and early childhood,” Progress in Brain Research, vol. 237, pp.
225–242, 2018.
[2] V. Buren, D. M ¨
ullensiefen, T. C. Roeske, and F. Deg´
e, “What makes
babies musical? conceptions of musicality in infants and toddlers,”
Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, p. 736833, 2021.
[3] M. Van Puyvelde, P. Vanfleteren, G. Loots, S. Deschuyffeleer, B. Vinck,
W. Jacquet, and W. Verhelst, “Tonal synchrony in mother–infant
interaction based on harmonic and pentatonic series,” Infant Behavior
and Development, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 387–400, 2010. [Online]. Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638310000548
[4] E. Gordon, Learning Sequences in Music: A Contemporary Music
Learning Theory. Chicago, Illinois: G.I.A. Publications, 2007.
[5] L. A. Custodero, “Seeking challenge, finding skill: Flow experience and
music education,” Arts education policy review, vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 3–9,
2002.
[6] S. Young, “Early childhood music education research: An overview,”
Research Studies in Music Education, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 9–21, 2016.
[7] ——, “Towards constructions of musical childhoods: Diversity and
digital technologies,” Early Child Development and Care, vol. 179,
no. 6, pp. 695–705, 2009.
[8] P. de Vries, “The use of technology to facilitate music learning experi-
ences in preschools,” Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, vol. 38,
no. 4, pp. 5–12, 2013.
[9] L. Cheng and C. Y. Lam, “Empowering children with a digital musical
instrument mobile app: Perspectives of early childhood educators,”
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 1–11, 2023.
[10] F. Wang and D. Liu, “Research on innovative preschool music education
models utilizing digital technology,” Journal of Education and Educa-
tional Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 148–152, 2023.
[11] M. Papadogianni, E. Altinsoy, and A. Andreopoulou, “Multimodal
exploration in elementary music classroom,” Journal on Multimodal
User Interfaces, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 55–68, 2024.
[12] L. Serra-Mar´
ın and N. Berbel-G´
omez, “The impact of the use of tech-
nology on student engagement and motivation in the music classroom,”
Journal of Music, Technology & Education, vol. 14, no. 2-3, pp. 157–
178, 2021.
[13] Z. Lechelt, Y. Rogers, N. Marquardt, and V. Shum, “Connectus: A
new toolkit for teaching about the internet of things,” in CHI EA ’16:
Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: Association for
Computing Machinery, 2016, pp. 3711–3714.
[14] L. Arnott, I. Palaiologou, and C. Gray, “Internet of toys across home
and early childhood education: understanding the ecology of the child’s
social world,” Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 28, no. 4, pp.
401–412, 2019.
[15] L. Ling, N. Yelland, M. Hatzigianni, and C. Dickson-Deane, “The use
of internet of things devices in early childhood education: A systematic
review,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 27, no. 5, pp.
6333–6352, 2022.
[16] L. Turchet, C. Fischione, G. Essl, D. Keller, and M. Barthet, “Internet of
musical things: Vision and challenges,” Ieee Access, vol. 6, pp. 61 994–
62 017, 2018.
[17] M. Kassab, J. DeFranco, and P. Laplante, “A systematic literature review
on internet of things in education: Benefits and challenges,” Journal of
computer Assisted learning, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 115–127, 2020.
[18] S¸. G¨
okc¸earslan, H. Yildiz Durak, and N. Atman Uslu, “Acceptance of
educational use of the internet of things (iot) in the context of individual
innovativeness and ict competency of pre-service teachers,” Interactive
Learning Environments, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 557–571, 2024.
[19] P. Mishra and M. J. Koehler, “Introducing technological pedagogical
content knowledge,” in annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, vol. 1, 2008, p. 16.
[20] T. Teo, “Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-
service teachers,” Computers & education, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 302–312,
2009.
[21] L. Turchet, “Entangled internet of musical things and people: A more-
than-human design framework for networked musical ecosystems,” IEEE
Transactions on Technology and Society, 2024.
[22] P. S. Campbell, C. Scott-Kassner, and K. Kassner, Music in Child-
hood: From Preschool Through the Elementary Grades. Boston,
Massachusetts, USA: Cengage Learning, 2013.
[23] S. E. Trehub, “Multimodal music in infancy and early childhood,” in The
Oxford Handbook of Music and the Body, Y. Kim and S. L. Gilman, Eds.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019, ch. 22, pp. 383–398.
[24] P.-T. Yu, Y.-S. Lai, H.-H. Tsai, and Y.-H. Chang, “Using a multimodal
learning system to support music instruction,” Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 151–162, 2010.
[25] L. Nijs and M. Bremmer, “Embodiment in Early Childhood Music Ed-
ucation,” in Music in Early Childhood: Multi-disciplinary Perspectives
and Inter-disciplinary Exchanges. International Perspectives on Early
Childhood Education and Development, S. Young and B. Ilari, Eds.
Cham, CH: Springer, Jul. 2019, vol. 27, ch. 5, pp. 87–102.
[26] L. Arnott and N. J. Yelland, “Multimodal lifeworlds: Pedagogies for
play inquiries and explorations,” Journal of Early Childhood Education
Research, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 124–146, 2020.
[27] A. Niland, “The power of musical play: The value of play-based, child-
centered curriculum in early childhood music education,” General Music
Today, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 17–21, 2009.
[28] B. Ilari, “Songs of belonging: Musical interactions in early life,” in
Musical experience in our lives: Things we learn and meanings we make,
J. L. Kerchner and C. R. Abril, Eds. MENC/Rowman & Littlefield
Education Lanham, MD, 2009, ch. 1, pp. 21–38.
[29] T. Madalozzo and V. D. B. Madalozzo, “Active music listening: Pro-
moting music and movement in early childhood music education,”
International Journal of Music in Early Childhood, vol. 14, no. 2, pp.
211–223, 2019.
[30] L. Turchet, F. Antoniazzi, F. Viola, F. Giunchiglia, and G. Fazekas, “The
internet of musical things ontology,” Journal of Web Semantics, vol. 60,
p. 100548, 2020.
[31] P. Iham¨
aki and K. Heljakka, “Smart toys for game-based and toy-based
learning–a study of toy marketers’, preschool teachers’ and parents’
perspectives on play,” in The Eleventh International Conference on Ad-
vances in Human-Oriented and Personalized Mechanisms, Technologies
and Services, CENTRIC, 2018, pp. 14–18.
[32] K. Heljakka, “How play moves us: Toys, technologies, and mobility in
a digital world,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Turku, Finland, 2024.
[33] L. Duji´
c Rodi´
c, I. Stanˇ
ci´
c, D. ˇ
Coko, T. Perkovi´
c, and A. Grani´
c,
“Towards a machine learning smart toy design for early childhood
geometry education: Usability and performance,” Electronics, vol. 12,
no. 8, p. 1951, 2023.
[34] G. Mascheroni and D. Holloway, “Introducing the internet of toys,” in
The Internet of Toys: Practices, affordances and the political economy
of children’s smart play, G. Mascheroni and D. Holloway, Eds. Cham,
CH: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019, pp. 1–22.
[35] J. Streiff, N. Noah, and S. Das, “A call for a new privacy & security
regime for iot smart toys,” in 2022 IEEE Conference on Dependable
and Secure Computing (DSC). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–8.
[36] A. Nijholt, Playful User Interfaces: Interfaces that Invite Social and
Physical Interaction. Singapore: Springer, 2014.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITA TRENTO. Downloaded on October 08,2024 at 20:14:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

[37] G. Georgiev, G. Hristov, P. Zahariev, and D. Kinaneva, “Robotics in ed-
ucation: A comparative analysis of robotic platforms across educational
levels,” in 31st National Conference with International Participation
(TELECOM). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–4.
[38] P. Mertala, “How connectivity affects otherwise traditional toys? a
functional analysis of hello barbie,” International Journal of Child-
Computer Interaction, vol. 25, p. 100186, 2020.
[39] M. Kazemitabaar, J. McPeak, A. Jiao, L. He, T. Outing, and J. E.
Froehlich, “Makerwear: A tangible approach to interactive wearable
creation for children,” in Proceedings of the 2017 chi conference on
human factors in computing systems, 2017, pp. 133–145.
[40] I. Pedersen and K. Aspevig, “Being jacob: Young children, automedial
subjectivity, and child social media influencers,” M/C Journal, vol. 21,
no. 2, 2018.
[41] S. Kewalramani, I. Palaiologou, and M. Dardanou, The integration of
internet of toys in early childhood education: Research from Australia,
England, and Norway. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2023.
[42] P. Iham¨
aki and K. Heljakka, “Internet of toys and forms of play in
early education: A longitudinal study of preschoolers’ toy-based learning
experiences,” Young Children’s Rights in a Digital World: Play, Design
and Practice, pp. 193–204, 2021.
[43] O. Miglino, R. Di Fuccio, A. Di Ferdinando, and C. Ricci, “Blockmagic,
a hybrid educational environment based on rfid technology and internet
of things concepts,” in Internet of Things. User-Centric IoT: First
International Summit, IoT360 2014, Rome, Italy, October 27-28, 2014,
Revised Selected Papers, Part I. Springer, 2015, pp. 64–69.
[44] G. Weinberg, R. Aimi, and K. Jennings, “The beatbug network: a
rhythmic system for interdependent group collaboration,” in Proceedings
of the 2002 conference on New interfaces for Musical Expression, 2002,
pp. 1–6.
[45] K. Jennings, “Toy symphony: An international music technology project
for children,” Music Education International, vol. 2, pp. 3–21, 2003.
[46] H. Solis, “The experience of teaching and collaborating with a young
composer in the creation of an electro-acoustic piece,” in III Interna-
tional Electro-Acoustic Music Meeting, Brasilia. Citeseer, 2003.
[47] M. D. Amico, L. A. Ludovico et al., “Kibo: A midi controller with a
tangible user interface for music education,” in Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on Computer Supported Education. 1: CSME.
SCITEPRESS, 2020, pp. 613–619.
[48] S. K. Christou, “Symphony of tomorrow: Synth4kids and the cutting
edge of music education, integrating tradition and technological bril-
liance,” Journal of Education and Digital Learning, vol. 10, no. 4, pp.
21–38, 2022.
[49] M. Bremmer and L. Nijs, “Embodied Music Pedagogy. A vision on the
dynamic role of the body in music education,” in European perspectives
on music education: Music Is What People Do, T. Buchborn, S. Schmid,
G. Brunner, and T. De Baets, Eds. Helbling, 2022, pp. 29–46.
[50] ——, “The Role of the Body in Instrumental and Vocal Music Pedagogy:
A Dynamical Systems Theory Perspective on the Music Teacher’s
Bodily Engagement in Teaching and Learning,” Frontiers in Education,
vol. 5, p. 79, Jun. 2020.
[51] K. Rao, M. W. Ok, and B. R. Bryant, “A review of research on universal
design educational models,” Remedial and special education, vol. 35,
no. 3, pp. 153–166, 2014.
[52] M. Leman, The expressive moment: How interaction (with music) shapes
human empowerment. MIT press, 2016.
[53] O. Gali, S. B. Ercan, G. Atherton, L. Cross, B. Sayis, P. Heaton, and
N. Pares, “Mediating interpersonal synchronization in children through a
full-body mixed reality system: Analysis of the pre-interactive mandala
experience,” PRESENCE: Virtual and Augmented Reality, vol. 32, pp.
35–51, 2023.
[54] K. M. Newell, “Change in Motor Learning: A Coordination and Control
Perspective,” Motriz Rio Claro, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2003.
[55] I. Renshaw and J.-Y. Chow, “A constraint-led approach to sport and
physical education pedagogy,” Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagogy, vol. 24,
no. 2, pp. 103–116, Mar. 2019.
[56] K. S. Rosengren and G. S. Braswell, “Constraints and the development
of children’s drawing and writing skills,” in Development of Movement
Coordination in Children: Applications in the Fields of Ergonomics,
Health Sciences, and Sport, G. J. P. Savelsbergh, K. Davids, J. v. d.
Kamp, and S. Bennet, Eds. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2003,
ch. 6, pp. 56–74.
[57] T. Hopper, “Constraints-led Approach and Emergent Learning: Using
Complexity Thinking to Frame Collectives in Creative Dance and
Inventing Games as Learning Systems,” The Open Sports Sciences
Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 76–87, Sept. 2012.
[58] D. Orth, J. van der Kamp, and C. Button, “Learning to be adaptive
as a distributed process across the coach–athlete system: situating the
coach in the constraints-led approach,” Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 146–161, 2019.
[59] L. Van Noorden, L. De Bruyn, R. Van Noorden, and M. Leman,
“Embodied social synchronization in children’s musical development,”
in The Routledge companion to embodied music interaction, M. Lesaffre,
P.-J. Maes, and M. Leman, Eds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2017, pp.
195–204.
[60] S. Dahl, D. Huron, G. Brod, and E. Altenm¨
uller, “Preferred dance tempo:
does sex or body morphology influence how we groove?” Journal of
New Music Research, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 214–223, 2014.
[61] L. Nijs and B. Behzadaval, “Laying the foundation for augmented reality
in music education,” IEEE Access, 2024.
[62] A. Schiavio and H. De Jaegher, “Participatory sense-making in joint
musical practice,” in The Routledge companion to embodied music
interaction, M. Lesaffre, P.-J. Maes, and M. Leman, Eds. New York,
NY, USA: Routledge, 2017, pp. 31–39.
[63] S. Gallagher, “Introduction to the special issue on relational autonomy
and collective intentionality,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy,
vol. 61, pp. 1–7, 2023.
[64] H. De Jaegher and E. Di Paolo, “Participatory sense-making,” Phe-
nomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 485–507,
Dec. 2007.
[65] A. Cavoukian et al., “Privacy by design: The 7 foundational principles,”
Information and privacy commissioner of Ontario, Canada, vol. 5, p. 12,
2009.
[66] P. Schaar, “Privacy by design,” Identity in the Information Society, vol. 3,
no. 2, pp. 267–274, 2010.
[67] B. Ehimuan, O. Chimezie, O. V. Akagha, O. Reis, B. B. Oguejiofor
et al., “Global data privacy laws: A critical review of technology’s
impact on user rights,” World Journal of Advanced Research and
Reviews, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 1058–1070, 2024.
[68] L. Turchet and M. Barthet, “Co-design of musical haptic wearables
for electronic music performer’s communication,” IEEE Transactions
on Human-Machine Systems, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 183–193, 2018.
[69] L. Turchet, D. Baker, and T. Stockman, “Musical haptic wearables for
synchronisation of visually-impaired performers: a co-design approach,”
in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM International Conference on Interactive
Media Experiences, 2021, pp. 20–27.
[70] L. Turchet, T. West, and M. M. Wanderley, “Touching the audience:
musical haptic wearables for augmented and participatory live music
performances,” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 25, pp. 749–
769, 2021.
[71] M. H. P. H. van Beurden, W. A. Ijsselsteijn, and Y. de Kort, “User
experience of gesture based interfaces: A comparison with traditional
interaction methods on pragmatic and hedonic qualities,” in Gesture
Workshop, 2011.
[72] R. M. Johnson, J. Van Der Linden, and Y. Rogers, “Musicjacket: the
efficacy of real-time vibrotactile feedback for learning to play the violin,”
in CHI’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
2010, pp. 3475–3480.
[73] C. Hopkins, S. Mat ´
e-Cid, R. Fulford, G. Seiffert, and J. Ginsborg,
“Perception and learning of relative pitch by musicians using the
vibrotactile mode,” Musicae Scientiae, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 3–26, 2023.
[74] M. S. Islam and S. Lim, “Vibrotactile feedback in virtual motor learning:
A systematic review,” Applied Ergonomics, vol. 101, p. 103694, 2022.
[75] D. Daugvilaite, “Exploring perceptions and experiences of students, par-
ents and teachers on their online instrumental lessons,” Music Education
Research, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 179–193, 2021.
[76] J. Brusseau and L. Turchet, “An ethics framework for the internet of
musical things,” IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 2024.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITA TRENTO. Downloaded on October 08,2024 at 20:14:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.