Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent motor control studies of piano performance address the anticipatory movements of pianists fingers. The reported study investigated anticipatory motion under manipulations of performance rate or tempo. It was tested whether faster tempi require larger anticipatory preparation, as suggested in piano pedagogy literature. Sixteen skilled pianists repeatedly performed short isochronous melodies from memory at four different tempi (from 500 to 143 ms inter-onset intervals). A passive 3-D motion capture system tracked the movements of 40 markers on the hand, fingers, and the piano keys. The melodies manipulated both the repositioning of certain fingers (thumb and pinkie finger) on the keyboard and the distance between repeating finger movements (three or six tones). Functional data analysis techniques were applied to the analysis of motion trajectories. Data analyses are presented that indicate that the repositioning movement of a finger toward its next goal (keypress) begins sooner at faster tempi than at slower tempi in the x plane (sideways motion on the keyboard). Applications to piano practice will be discussed. [Work supported by the Austrian Science Fund, NSERC, and the Canada Research Chairs program.]
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".