Social Interaction and Rate Effects in Models of Musical Synchronization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Important individual differences are observed in people's abilities to synchronize their body movements with regular auditory rhythms. We investigate whether synchronizing with a regular auditory cue is affected by each person's spontaneous production rate (SPR) and by hearing a partner's synchronization in a social context. Musically trained and untrained participants synchronized their tapping with an auditory cue presented at different rates (their own SPR or their partner's SPR) and in a Solo or Joint (turn-taking) condition. Linear and nonlinear oscillator models were fit to participants' mean asynchronies (signed timing differences between the cued onsets and taps). In Joint turn-taking, participants' synchrony was increased when the auditory signal was cued at the participant's own SPR, compared with their partner's SPR; in contrast, synchronization did not differ across rates in the Solo condition. Asynchronies in the Joint task became larger as the difference between partners' spontaneous rates increased; the increased asynchronies were driven by the faster partner who did not slow down to match the rate of their slower partner. Nonlinear delay-coupled models (with time delay, coupling strength, and intrinsic frequency) outperformed linear models (intrinsic frequency only) in accounting for tappers' synchronization adjustments. The nonlinear model's coupling value increased for musically trained participants, relative to untrained participants. Overall, these findings suggest that both intrinsic differences in partners' spontaneous rates and the social turn-taking context contribute to the range of synchrony in the general population. Delay-coupled models are capable of capturing the wide range of individual differences in auditory-motor synchronization.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".