The Effects of Stimulus Rate and Tapping Rate on Tapping Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
when finger taps are synchronized with an isochronous click, it is known that tap-click asynchrony and its variability increase with the interonset interval (IOI). It remains unclear whether these results are due to the IOI or the intertap interval (ITI) duration. The present study examines how these two factors influence tapping performance by altering the tap-click ratio (i.e., 1:n tapping). It has been shown that holding the ITI constant while decreasing the IOI—so that extra clicks subdivide each tap—results in a reduction of tapping variability, described as a subdivision benefit (Repp, 2003). Two questions remain: Does asynchrony and variability increase with the ITI while holding the IOI constant? Does asynchrony decrease with the IOI while holding ITI constant? Using linear regression, both asynchrony and variability decreased with the IOI, with little additional effect of ITI. In contrast, when using ITI as a predictor, the contribution of IOI was significant, suggesting that IOI is the main determinant of tapping performance. In addition, an ANOVA revealed a disadvantage for 1:3 tapping, supporting a categorical distinction between duple and triple meters since 1:n tapping can engender the subjective feel of different metric structures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".