MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189886458 · doi:10.1080/00222895.2021.1962237

Proximal-to-Distal Sequences of Attack and Release Movements of Expert Pianists during Pressed-Staccato Keystrokes

2021· article· en· W3189886458 on OpenAlexafffund
Felipe Verdugo, Mickaël Begon, Sylvie Gibet, Marcelo M. Wanderley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusicians’ Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaFonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture
KeywordsKinematicsMotion captureTrunkMovement (music)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPelvisPsychologyMotion (physics)Computer scienceAnatomyMedicineArtificial intelligenceAcousticsBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aims of this study were to i) evaluate proximal-to-distal sequencing (PDS) in pianists’ attack and release movements during pressed-staccato keystrokes, and ii) investigate if trunk motion facilitates PDS of upper-limb movements. Nine expert pianists performed a series of loud pressed-staccato keystrokes. Kinematic data was recorded with a 3 D motion capture system. PDS was assessed by comparing temporal organization of peak velocities from the pelvis to the wrist. Evidence of PDS was found across the kinematic chain. Pianists’ use of PDS differed mainly between scapula and shoulder movements. Trunk motion facilitated PDS by increasing anticipatory shoulder movements and by preceding shoulder-girdle attack and release movements. Implications might relate to research on performance optimization and injury prevention strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Motor BehaviorSame topicMusicians’ Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207