Synchronization of Timing and Motion Among Performing Musicians
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
WE INVESTIGATED INFLUENCES OF AUDITORY FEEDBACK, musical role, and note ratio on synchronization in ensemble performance. Pianists performed duets on a piano keyboard; the pianist playing the upper part was designated the leader and the other pianist was the follower. They received full auditory feedback, one-way feedback (leaders heard themselves while followers heard both parts), or self-feedback only. The upper part contained more, fewer, or equal numbers of notes relative to the lower part. Temporal asynchronies increased as auditory feedback decreased: The pianist playing more notes preceded the other pianist, and this tendency increased with reduced feedback. Interonset timing suggested bidirectional adjustments during full feedback despite the leader/follower instruction, and unidirectional adjustment only during reduced feedback. Motion analyses indicated that leaders raised fingers higher and pianists' head movements became more synchronized as auditory feedback was reduced. These findings suggest that visual cues became more important when auditory information was absent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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