Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explore the effects of trained musical movements on sensorimotor interactions in order to clarify the interpretation of previously observed expertise differences. Pianists and non-pianists listened to an auditory sequence and identified whether the final event occurred in time with the sequence. In half the trials participants listened without moving, and in half they synchronized keystrokes while listening. Pianists and non-pianists were better able to identify the timing of the final tone after synchronizing keystrokes compared to listening only. Curiously, this effect of movement did not differ between pianists and non-pianists despite substantial training differences with respect to finger movements. We also found few group differences in the ability to align keystrokes with events in the auditory sequence; however, movements were less variable (lower coefficient of variation) in pianists compared to non-pianists. Consistent with the idea that the benefits of synchronization on rhythm perception are constrained by motor effector kinematics, this work helps clarify previous findings in this paradigm. We discuss these outcomes in light of training and the kinematics involved in pianist keystrokes compared to musicians synchronizing movements in other studies. We also overview how these differences across motor effector synchronization and training must be accounted for in models of perception and action.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".