MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081898452 · doi:10.1007/s00221-014-4108-5

The role of working memory in the temporal control of discrete and continuous movements

2014· article· en· W2081898452 on OpenAlexafffund
Pieter‐Jan Maes, Marcelo M. Wanderley, Caroline Palmėr

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Brain Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and TechnologyMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology
KeywordsNeuroscienceWorking memoryControl (management)PsychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceCognitionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Music performance requires precise control of limb movements in order to achieve temporal precision of performed tone onsets. Previous findings suggest that processes recruited for the temporal control of rhythmic body movements, such as those required in music performance, depend on the movement type (discrete vs. continuous) and the rate of the produced interonset intervals (sub-second vs. supra-second). Using a dual-task paradigm, the current study addressed these factors in the temporal control of cellists' bowing movements. Cellists performed melodies in a synchronization-continuation timing task at a specified fast (intertone interval = 700 ms) or slow (intertone interval = 1,100 ms) tempo with either discrete (staccato) or continuous (legato) bowing movements. A secondary working memory task involved a concurrent digit-switch counting task. Analyses of the produced tone durations showed that the working memory load significantly impaired temporal regularity when the melodies were performed with discrete bowing movements at the slower tempo. In addition, discrete movements led to more errors on the working memory task. These findings suggest that continuous body movements provide temporal control information to performers under high cognitive load conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental Brain ResearchSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207