MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108037307 · doi:10.1037/a0021487

Delayed auditory feedback and movement.

2011· article· en· W2108037307 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Q. Pfordresher, Simone Dalla Bella

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsInternational Laboratory for Brain, Music and Sound Research
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMetronomeRhythmMovement (music)Auditory feedbackTrajectoryAudiologyMathematicsControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceCommunicationPsychologyArtificial intelligencePhysicsAcousticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well known that timing of rhythm production is disrupted by delayed auditory feedback (DAF), and that disruption varies with delay length. We tested the hypothesis that disruption depends on the state of the movement trajectory at the onset of DAF. Participants tapped isochronous rhythms at a rate specified by a metronome while hearing DAF (for piano tones) of differing lengths. Motion capture was used to analyze movement trajectories. Mean Inter-Response Intervals (IRIs) varied as an approximately sinusoidal function of feedback condition, with DAF causing slowed production for shorter delays and speeded production for faster delays. Motion capture analyses revealed that finger velocity at the time of DAF predicted the effect of DAF on mean IRI whereas finger position predicted the variability of IRIs. A second experiment in which participants were instructed to vary the timing of peak finger height confirmed that the effect of DAF on timing variability is directly influenced by the finger trajectory.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & PerformanceSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207