MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113145870 · doi:10.5709/acp-0304-y

The TeensyTap Framework for Sensorimotor Synchronization Experiments

2020· article· en· W3113145870 on OpenAlexaff
Floris T. van Vugt

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Cognitive Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetronomeComputer scienceSynchronizingSynchronization (alternating current)SoftwareProcess (computing)MillisecondHuman–computer interactionReal-time computingRhythm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synchronizing movements with an external periodic stimulus, such as tapping your foot along with a metronome, is a remarkable human skill called sensorimotor synchronization. A growing body of literature investigates this process, but experiments require collecting responses with high temporal reliability, which often requires specialized hardware. The current article presents and validates TeensyTap, an inexpensive, highly functional framework with excellent timing performance. The framework uses widely available, low-cost hardware and consists of custom-written open-source software and communication protocols. TeensyTap allows running complete experiments through a graphical user interface and can simultaneously present a pacing signal (metronome), measure movements using a force-sensitive resistor, and deliver auditory feedback, with optional experimenter-specified artificial feedback delays. Movement data is communicated to a computer and saved for offline analysis in a format that allows it to be easily imported into spreadsheet programs. The present work also reports a validation experiment showing that timing performance of TeensyTap is highly accurate, ranking it among the gold standard tools available in the field. Metronome pacing signals are presented with millisecond accuracy, feedback sounds are delivered on average 2 ms following the subjects' taps, and the timing log files produced by the device are unbiased and accurate to within a few milliseconds. The framework allows for a range of experimental questions to be addressed and, since it is open source and transparent, researchers with some technical expertise can easily adapt and extend it to accommodate a host of possible future experiments that have yet to be imagined.

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Cognitive PsychologySame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207