MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885188059

Brain Entrain: Acoustic Features of Music that Drive You to Synch

2017· article· en· W2885188059 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gabriel A Nespoli, Sean A. Gilmore, Frank Russo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian acoustics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrainment (biomusicology)TappingPremotor cortexBeat (acoustics)ElectroencephalographyRhythmBrain activity and meditationMetronomeStimulus (psychology)PsychologySpeech recognitionNeuroscienceAcousticsComputer scienceCognitive psychologyPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tapping along with a metronome or the beat of music is a relatively easy task. Certain acoustic features of music have been found to support this behavioural synchronization. For example, lower frequency content has been found to be related to higher tapping velocity and lower tapping variability (Stupacher, Hove, & Janata, 2016). Neurons will also entrain their firing to the beat of music, but it is unknown whether those same acoustic features that support behavioural synchronization will also support neural entrainment. The current study seeks to investigate which acoustic features of music support the entrainment of neurons that are related to behavioural synchronization, such as those in premotor areas of the brain. In a previous study, participants listened to music while EEG was measured from the surface of the scalp. Independent components analysis was used to identify sources of activity in auditory and premotor areas of the brain. In a post-hoc analysis, certain acoustic features of the music were found to correlate with neural entrainment. Specifically, tempo and RMS were found to correlate with entrainment of premotor areas, whereas low energy rate (the proportion of the signal below the average energy) and spectral centroid were found to correlate with beta-band phase coherence of auditory and premotor areas. In a second [pilot] study, a stimulus set was created to specifically investigate these features and their ability to entrain neurons in premotor areas of the brain.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian acousticsSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207