The effects of Parkinson’s disease, music training, and dance training on beat perception and production abilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans naturally perceive and move to a musical beat, entraining body movements to auditory rhythms through clapping, tapping, and dancing. Yet the accuracy of this seemingly effortless behavior varies widely across individuals. Beat perception and production abilities can be improved by experience, such as music and dance training, and impaired by progressive neurological changes, such as in Parkinson's disease. In this study, we assessed the effects of music and dance experience on beat processing in young and older adults, as well as individuals with early-stage Parkinson's disease. We used the Beat Alignment Test (BAT) to assess beat perception and production in a convenience sample of 458 participants (278 healthy young adults, 139 healthy older adults, and 41 people with early-stage Parkinson's disease), with varying levels of music and dance training. In general, we found that participants with over three years of music training had more accurate beat perception than those with less training (p < .001). Interestingly, Parkinson's disease patients with music training had beat production abilities comparable to healthy adults while Parkinson's disease patients with minimal to no music training performed significantly worse. No effects were found in healthy adults for dance training, and too few Parkinson's disease patients had dance training to reliably assess its effects. The finding that musically trained Parkinson's disease patients performed similarly to healthy adults during a beat production task, while untrained patients did not, suggests music training may preserve certain rhythmic motor timing abilities in early-stage Parkinson's disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".