MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803784174 · doi:10.1111/nyas.13738

Amplitude envelope correlations measure synchronous cortical oscillations in performing musicians

2018· article· en· W2803784174 on OpenAlexafffund
Anna Zamm, Stefan Debener, Anna‐Katharina R. Bauer, Martin G. Bleichner, Alexander P. Demos, Caroline Palmėr

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersErasmus+Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsEuropean Commission
KeywordsEnvelope (radar)AmplitudeElectroencephalographyDynamics (music)White noiseJoint (building)Measure (data warehouse)AcousticsBioacousticsNoise (video)Computer sciencePhysicsSpeech recognitionNeurosciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major question facing cognitive neuroscience is measurement of interbrain synchrony between individuals performing joint actions. We describe the application of a novel method for measuring musicians' interbrain synchrony: amplitude envelope correlations (AECs). Amplitude envelopes (AEs) reflect energy fluctuations in cortical oscillations over time; AE correlations measure the degree to which two envelope fluctuations are temporally correlated, such as cortical oscillations arising from two individuals performing a joint action. Wireless electroencephalography was recorded from two pianists performing a musical duet; an analysis pipeline is described for computing AEs of cortical oscillations at the duet performance frequency (number of tones produced per second) to test whether these oscillations reflect the temporal dynamics of partners' performances. The pianists' AE correlations were compared with correlations based on a distribution of AEs simulated from white noise signals using the same methods. The AE method was also applied to the temporal characteristics of the pianists' performances, to show that the observed pair's AEs reflect the temporal dynamics of their performance. AE correlations offer a promising approach for assessing interbrain correspondences in cortical activity associated with performing joint tasks.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations65
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207