Auditory-motor synchronization and perception suggest partially distinct time scales in speech and music
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speech and music might involve specific cognitive rhythmic timing mechanisms related to differences in the dominant rhythmic structure. We investigate the influence of different motor effectors on rate-specific processing in both domains. A perception and a synchronization task involving syllable and piano tone sequences and motor effectors typically associated with speech (whispering) and music (finger-tapping) were tested at slow (~2 Hz) and fast rates (~4.5 Hz). Although synchronization performance was generally better at slow rates, the motor effectors exhibited specific rate preferences. Finger-tapping was advantaged compared to whispering at slow but not at faster rates, with synchronization being effector-dependent at slow, but highly correlated at faster rates. Perception of speech and music was better at different rates and predicted by a fast general and a slow finger-tapping synchronization component. Our data suggests partially independent rhythmic timing mechanisms for speech and music, possibly related to a differential recruitment of cortical motor circuitry.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it