MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035004561 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01159

Effects of Trunk Motion, Touch, and Articulation on Upper-Limb Velocities and on Joint Contribution to Endpoint Velocities During the Production of Loud Piano Tones

2020· article· en· W3035004561 on OpenAlex
Felipe Verdugo, Justine Pelletier, Benjamin Michaud, Caroline Traube, Mickaël Begon

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineMcGill UniversityCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and TechnologyUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et CultureUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsArticulation (sociology)PianoPsychologyTrunkJoint (building)Motion (physics)Motion captureCommunicationAcousticsCognitive psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Piano performance involves several levels of motor abundancy. Identification of kinematic strategies that enhance performance and reduce risks of practice-related musculoskeletal disorders (PRMD) represents an important research topic since more than half of professional pianists might suffer from PRMD during their career. Studies in biomechanics have highlighted the benefits of using proximal upper-limb joints to reduce the load on distal segments by effectively creating velocity and force at the finger-key interaction. If scientific research has documented postural and expressive features of pianists’ trunk motion, there is currently a lack of scientific evidence assessing the role of trunk motion in sound-production and in injury prevention. We address this gap by integrating motion of the pelvis and thorax in the analysis of both upper-limb linear velocities and joint angular contribution to endpoint velocities. Specifically, this study aims to assess kinematic features of different types of touch and articulation and the impact of trunk motion on these features. Twelve pianists performed repetitive loud and slow-paced keystrokes. They were asked to vary: i) body implication (use of trunk and upper limb motion or use of only upper limb motion), ii) touch (struck touch, initiating the attack with the fingertip at a certain distance from the key surface, or pressed touch, initiating the attack with the fingertip in contact with the key surface), and iii) articulation (staccato, short finger-key contact time, or tenuto, sustained finger-key contact time). Data were collected using a 3D motion capture system and a sound recording device. Results show that body implication, touch, and articulation modified kinematic features of loud keystrokes, which exhibited not only downward but also important forward segmental velocities (particularly in pressed touch and staccato articulation). Pelvic anterior rotation had a prominent role in the production of loud tones as it effectively contributed to create forward linear velocities at the upper limb. The reported findings have implications for performance, teaching and research domains since they provide evidence of how pianists’ trunk motion can actively contribute to the sound-production and might not only be associated with either postural or expressive features.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.221 · 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