MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311811376 · doi:10.1111/desc.13360

The complexity‐aesthetics relationship for musical rhythm is more fixed than flexible: Evidence from children and expert dancers

2022· article· en· W4311811376 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsPsychologyGroove (engineering)RhythmDanceAestheticsVisual artsEngineeringArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The urge to move to music (groove) depends in part on rhythmic syncopation in the music. For adults, the syncopation-groove relationship has an inverted-U shape: listeners want to move most to rhythms that have some, but not too much, syncopation. However, we do not know whether the syncopation-groove relationship is relatively sensitive to, or resistant to, a listener's experience. In two sets of experiments, we tested whether the syncopation-groove relationship is affected by dance experience or changes through development in childhood. Dancers and nondancers rated groove for 50 rhythmic patterns varying in syncopation. Dancers' and nondancers' ratings did not differ (and Bayesian tests provided substantial evidence that they were equivalent) in terms of mean groove and the optimal level of syncopation. Similarly, ballet and hip-hop dancers' syncopation-groove relationships did not differ. However, dancers had more robust syncopation-groove relationships (higher goodness-of-fit) than nondancers. Children (3-6 years old) completed two tasks to assess their syncopation-groove relationships: In a 2-alternative-forced choice task, children compared rhythms from 2 of 3 possible levels of syncopation (low, medium, and high) and chose which rhythm in a pair was better for dancing. In a dance task, children danced to the same rhythms. Results from both tasks indicated that for children, as for adults, medium syncopation rhythms elicit more groove than low syncopation rhythms. A follow-up experiment replicated the 2-alternative-forced choice task results. Taken together, the results suggest the optimal level of syncopation for groove is resistant to experience, although experience may affect the robustness of the inverted-U relationship. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: In Experiment 1, dancers and nondancers rated groove (the urge to move) for musical rhythms, demonstrating the same inverted-U relationships between syncopation and groove. In Experiment 2, children and adults both chose rhythms with moderate syncopation more than low syncopation as more groove-inducing or better for dancing. Children also danced more for moderate than low syncopation, showing a close perception-behavior relationship across tasks. Similarities in the syncopation-groove relationship regardless of dance training and age suggest that this perceptual and behavioral groove response to rhythmic complexity may be quite resistant to experience.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.204 · 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