MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394795717 · doi:10.1101/2024.04.10.588486

Audio-visual concert performances synchronize an audience’s heart rates

2024· preprint· en· W4394795717 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Czepiel, Lauren Fink, Mathias Scharinger, Christoph Seibert, Melanie Wald‐Fuhrmann, Sonja A. Kotz

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudio visualComputer sciencePsychologyCommunicationMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract People enjoy engaging with music. Live music concerts provide an excellent option to investigate real-world music experiences, and at the same time, use neurophysiological synchrony to assess dynamic engagement. In the current study, we assessed engagement in a live concert setting using synchrony of cardiorespiratory measures, comparing inter-subject, stimulus-response, correlation, and phase coherence. As engagement might be enhanced in a concert setting by seeing musicians perform, we presented audiences with audio-only (AO) and audio-visual (AV) piano performances. Only correlation measures were above chance level. In comparing time-averaged synchrony across conditions, AV performances evoked higher inter-subject correlation of heart rate (ISC-HR). However, self-reported engagement did not correspond to synchrony when averaged across music pieces. On the other hand, time-resolved analyses show that synchronized deceleration-acceleration heart rate (HR) patterns, typical of an ‘orienting response’ (an index of directed attention), occurred within music pieces at salient events of section boundaries. That is, seeing musicians perform heightened audience engagement at structurally important moments in Western classical music. Overall, we could show that multisensory information shapes dynamic engagement. By comparing different synchrony measures, we further highlight the advantages of timeseries analysis, specifically ISC-HR, as a robust measure of holistic musical listening experiences in naturalistic concert settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicNeuroscience and Music Perception→French-language works237,207→