Movement amplitude and tempo change in piano performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Music performance places stringent temporal and cognitive demands on individuals that should yield large speed/accuracy tradeoffs. Skilled piano performance, however, shows consistently high accuracy across a wide variety of rates. Movement amplitude may affect the speed/accuracy tradeoff, so that high accuracy can be obtained even at very fast tempi. The contribution of movement amplitude changes in rate (tempo) is investigated with motion capture. Cameras recorded pianists with passive markers on hands and fingers, who performed on an electronic (MIDI) keyboard. Pianists performed short melodies at faster and faster tempi until they made errors (altering the speed/accuracy function). Variability of finger movements in the three motion planes indicated most change in the plane perpendicular to the keyboard across tempi. Surprisingly, peak amplitudes of motion before striking the keys increased as tempo increased. Increased movement amplitudes at faster rates may reduce or compensate for speed/accuracy tradeoffs. [Work supported by Canada Research Chairs program, HIMH R01 45764.]
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it