The Musician Redefined: A Behavioral Assessment of Rhythm Perception in Professional Club DJs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of musical training demonstrate functional advantages in rhythm tasks that result from enriched auditory experience. Anatomical correlates exist in brain areas involved in auditory perception, speech processing, motor control, attention, and emotion. However, these studies fail to include many classes of musicians that might undergo experience-related change. The current study examined rhythm processing in professional disc jockeys (DJs) who routinely engage in temporally-demanding tasks during practice and performance. In Experiment 1, DJs outperformed controls at detecting a deviation in a rhythmic pattern, and were no different than trained percussionists. In Experiment 2, participants receiving one week of DJ training trended toward outperforming untrained participants on this same measure. Across experiments, movement improved detection of rhythmic deviations, providing evidence of privileged auditory-motor connections, and underscoring the importance of motor areas to rhythm perception. It is clear that DJs show experience-dependent changes in perception that are comparable to more traditional musicians.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".