Movement Enhances Perceived Timing in the Absence of Auditory Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moving (tapping) to a beat can objectively improve the perception of timing. Here we examine whether auditory feedback from tapping is a requirement for this improvement. In this experiment, two groups of participants heard a series of isochronous beats, and identified whether a probe tone after a short silence was consistent with the timing of the preceding sequence. On half of the trials, participants tapped along on an electronic drum pad up to and including the probe tone, and on half of the trials they listened without tapping. In the auditory feedback (AF) group sounds from tapping were available to participants and in the no auditory feedback (NAF) group these sounds were masked using white noise. In both groups, movement improved timing judgments of the probe tone, however this improvement was more pronounced when auditory feedback was present. Additionally, tapping was more accurate when auditory feedback was available. While previously we demonstrated an effect of movement on perceived timing, here we clarify that movement alone is sufficient to trigger this improvement (independent of the movement’s auditory consequences). We identify the importance of auditory feedback as a cue for movement timing, which subsequently affects perceived timing of an external stimulus. Additionally we have demonstrated that movement alone can improve timing perception, independent of the auditory feedback caused by this movement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".