Technology-mediated feedback in instrumental music practice, performance, and learning: a systematic review of...

Technology-mediated feedback can support instrumental music performance during practice, but such gains do not necessarily indicate durable learning. This systematic review examined feedback architecture (information type, modality, timing, performance target, and function), performance outcomes, assessment conditions, and quantitative-synthesis feasibility.

Scopus, Répertoire International de Littérature Musicale (RILM) Abstracts of Music Literature, Web of Science Core Collection, APA PsycINFO, and ERIC were searched in May 2026 for empirical studies published since 2000 involving instrumental music learners across expertise levels. Quantitative and mixed-methods designs with learner-level performance data were eligible. Appraisal used the 2018 Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were mapped and tabulated by design, comparator, feedback characteristics, and outcome domain, with reporting guided by Synthesis Without Meta-analysis.

Of 1,689 records, 29 were retained in the record ledger; 27 formed the systematic-synthesis set and 26 the descriptive synthesis set. Learners ranged from novices to advanced musicians, principally in piano and bowed-string tasks. Among these 26 records, 21 included visual feedback and 18 delivered feedback concurrently. Movement, posture, or technique and rhythm or timing each accounted for 9 of 43 performance outcomes. Three reports described later-session retention and two tested different pieces; assessment conditions did not consistently establish performance without feedback. Appraisal identified unclear allocation, assessor blinding, and measurement safeguards. Of seven reports examined quantitatively, two yielded standardized group differences favoring technology-supported instructional packages, and two yielded paired differences representing a feedback-format comparison and uncontrolled pre-post change. Three lacked sufficient numerical information. Heterogeneous designs and outcomes precluded pooling or technology rankings.

Interpretation is limited by incomplete reporting, single-reviewer extraction with partial independent verification, and incomplete coverage of conference and gray literature. Organizing the identified evidence by feedback architecture connects the information provided with the performance processes targeted across technologies. The synthesis highlights alignment among feedback architecture, performance targets, outcome measures, and assessment conditions as a basis for distinguishing immediate performance from durable learning.

https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2026.7.0069, identifier INPLASY202670069 (retrospectively registered).