Efficacy of Auditory versus Motor Learning for Skilled and Novice Performers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans must learn a variety of sensorimotor skills, yet the relative contributions of sensory and motor information to skill acquisition remain unclear. Here we compare the behavioral and neural contributions of perceptual learning to that of motor learning, and we test whether these contributions depend on the expertise of the learner. Pianists and nonmusicians learned to perform novel melodies on a piano during fMRI scanning in four learning conditions: listening (auditory learning), performing without auditory feedback (motor learning), performing with auditory feedback (auditory-motor learning), or observing visual cues without performing or listening (cue-only learning). Visual cues were present in every learning condition and consisted of musical notation for pianists and spatial cues for nonmusicians. Melodies were performed from memory with no visual cues and with auditory feedback (recall) five times during learning. Pianists showed greater improvements in pitch and rhythm accuracy at recall during auditory learning compared with motor learning. Nonmusicians demonstrated greater rhythm improvements at recall during auditory learning compared with all other learning conditions. Pianists showed greater primary motor response at recall during auditory learning compared with motor learning, and response in this region during auditory learning correlated with pitch accuracy at recall and with auditory-premotor network response during auditory learning. Nonmusicians showed greater inferior parietal response during auditory compared with auditory-motor learning, and response in this region correlated with pitch accuracy at recall. Results suggest an advantage for perceptual learning compared with motor learning that is both general and expertise-dependent. This advantage is hypothesized to depend on feedforward motor control systems that can be used during learning to transform sensory information into motor production.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".