Physiological and Behavioral Factors in Musicians’ Performance Tempo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Musicians display individual differences in their spontaneous performance rates (tempo) for simple melodies, but the factors responsible are unknown. Previous research suggests that musical tempo modulates listeners' cardiovascular activity. We report an investigation of musicians' melody performances measured over a 12-h day and subsequent changes in the musicians' physiological activity. Skilled pianists completed four testing sessions in a single day as cardiac activity was recorded during an initial 5 min of baseline rest and during performances of familiar and unfamiliar melodies. Results indicated slower tempi for familiar and unfamiliar melodies at early testing times. Performance rates at 09 h were predicted by differences in participants' alertness and musical training; these differences were not explained by sleep patterns, chronotype, or cardiac activity. Individual differences in pianists' performance tempo were consistent across testing sessions: participants with a faster tempo at 09 h maintained a faster tempo at later testing sessions. Cardiac measures at early testing times indicated increased heart rates and more predictable cardiac dynamics during music performance than baseline rest, and during performances of unfamiliar melodies than familiar melodies. These findings provide the first evidence of cardiac dynamics that are unique to music performance contexts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".