Finger tapping to different styles of music and changes in cortical oscillations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Music has been a therapeutic strategy proposed to improve impaired movement performance, but there remains a lack of understanding of how music impacts motor cortical activity. Thus, the purpose of this study is to use a time-frequency analysis (i.e., wavelet) of electroencephalographic (EEG) data to determine differences in motor and auditory cortical activity when moving to music at two different rates. Twenty healthy young adults tapped their index finger while electroencephalography was collected. There were three conditions (tapping in time with a tone and with two contrasting music styles), and each condition was repeated at two different rates (70 and 140 beats per minute). A time-frequency Morlet wavelet analysis was completed for electrodes of interest over the sensorimotor areas (FC3, FC4, FCz, C3, C4, Cz) and the primary auditory areas (T7, T8). Cluster-based permutation testing was applied to the electrodes of interest for all conditions. Results showed few differences between cortical oscillations when moving to music versus a tone. However, the two music conditions elicited a variety of distinct responses, particularly at the slower movement rate. These results suggest that music style and movement rate should be considered when designing therapeutic applications that include music to target motor performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".