Rhythm-based Temporal Expectations: Unique Contributions of Predictability and Periodicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anticipating events and focusing attention accordingly are crucial for navigating our dynamic environment. Rhythmic patterns of sensory input offer valuable cues for temporal expectations and facilitate perceptual processing. Rhythm-based temporal expectations may rely on oscillatory entrainment, where neural activity and perceptual sensitivity synchronize with periodic stimuli. However, whether entrainment models can account for aperiodic predictable rhythms remains unclear. Our study aimed to delineate the distinct roles of predictability and periodicity in rhythm-based expectations. Participants performed a pitch-identification task preceded by periodic predictable, aperiodic predictable, or aperiodic unpredictable temporal sequences. By manipulating the temporal position of the target sound, we observed how auditory perceptual performance was modulated by the target position's relative phase relationship to the preceding sequences. Results revealed a significant performance advantage for predictable sequences, both periodic and aperiodic, compared with unpredictable ones. However, only the periodic sequence induced an entrained modulation pattern, with performance peaking in synchrony with the inherent sequence continuation. Event-related brain potentials corroborated these findings. The target-evoked P3b, possibly a neural marker of attention allocation, mirrored the behavioral performance patterns. This supports our hypothesis that temporal attention guided by rhythm-based expectations modulates perceptual performance. Furthermore, the predictive sequences were associated with enhanced target-preceding negativity (akin to the contingent negative variation), indicating enhanced target preparation. The periodic-specific modulation likely reflects more precise temporal expectations, potentially involving neural entrainment and/or more focused attention. Our findings suggest that predictability and periodicity influence perception through distinct mechanisms.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".