Eye-hand synchronisation in xylophone performance: Two case-studies with african and western percussionists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is the result of a first foray into xylophone performance with percussionists from Canada and Cameroon. It proposes to use the combination of Eye-Stroke Span (ESS), Fixation- Duration and Note-Pattern indexes to analyze free-score and performance oriented musical tasks, instead of eye-hand span or awareness span for sight-reading and score-based eye-tracking research in music. Based on measurements realized with a head-mounted eyetracker system, the research examines gaze-movements related to eye-hand synchronization in xylophone performance with musicians coming from three different ethnic groups from Cameroon (Bedzan Pygmies, Tikar and Eton) and classically trained Western percussionists (Canada). Increases in tempo are found to involve a diminution of the number of fixations, but not proportionally, as well as changes in lateral gaze shifts. Fixation-Duration and Note- Pattern are closely related but not identical, while ESS is relatively more independent. These gaze patterns are consistent within individuals, but not across individuals. Cameroonian musicians tend to look away from their instrument, interacting with their peers or with the audience. When they look at their keyboard, preliminary measures of ESS were found similar to the ESS of Western performers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".