Reduced precision of motor and perceptual rhythmic timing in autistic adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent results suggest that autistic individuals exhibit reduced accuracy compared to non-autistic peers in temporally coordinating their actions with predictable external cues, e.g., synchronizing finger taps to an auditory metronome. However, it is not yet clear whether these difficulties are driven primarily by motor differences or extend into perceptual rhythmic timing tasks. We recruited autistic and non-autistic participants for an online study testing both finger tapping synchronization and continuation as well as rhythmic time perception (anisochrony detection). We fractionated each participant's synchronization results into parameters representing error correction, motor noise, and internal time-keeper noise, and also investigated error-correcting responses to small metronome timing perturbations. Contrary to previous work, we did not find strong evidence for reduced synchronization error correction. However, we found compelling evidence for noisier internal rhythmic timekeeping in the synchronization, continuation, and perceptual components of the experiment. These results suggest that noisier internal rhythmic timing processes underlie some sensorimotor coordination challenges in autism.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".