Neural and Behavioral Evidence for Vibrotactile Beat Perception and Bimodal Enhancement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to synchronize movements to a rhythmic stimulus, referred to as sensorimotor synchronization (SMS), is a behavioral measure of beat perception. Although SMS is generally superior when rhythms are presented in the auditory modality, recent research has demonstrated near-equivalent SMS for vibrotactile presentations of isochronous rhythms [Ammirante, P., Patel, A. D., & Russo, F. A. Synchronizing to auditory and tactile metronomes: A test of the auditory–motor enhancement hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1882–1890, 2016]. The current study aimed to replicate and extend this study by incorporating a neural measure of beat perception. Nonmusicians were asked to tap to rhythms or to listen passively while EEG data were collected. Rhythmic complexity (isochronous, nonisochronous) and presentation modality (auditory, vibrotactile, bimodal) were fully crossed. Tapping data were consistent with those observed by Ammirante et al. (2016), revealing near-equivalent SMS for isochronous rhythms across modality conditions and a drop-off in SMS for nonisochronous rhythms, especially in the vibrotactile condition. EEG data revealed a greater degree of neural entrainment for isochronous compared to nonisochronous trials as well as for auditory and bimodal compared to vibrotactile trials. These findings led us to three main conclusions. First, isochronous rhythms lead to higher levels of beat perception than nonisochronous rhythms across modalities. Second, beat perception is generally enhanced for auditory presentations of rhythm but still possible under vibrotactile presentation conditions. Finally, exploratory analysis of neural entrainment at harmonic frequencies suggests that beat perception may be enhanced for bimodal presentations of rhythm.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".