Beat-based dancing to music has evolutionary foundations in advanced vocal learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dancing to music is ancient and widespread in human cultures. While dance shows great cultural diversity, it often involves nonvocal rhythmic movements synchronized to musical beats in a predictive and tempo-flexible manner. To date, the only nonhuman animals known to spontaneously move to music in this way are parrots. This paper proposes that human-parrot similarities in movement to music and in the neurobiology of advanced vocal learning hold clues to the evolutionary foundations of human dance. The proposal draws on recent research on the neurobiology of parrot vocal learning by Jarvis and colleagues and on a recent cortical model for speech motor control by Hickock and colleagues. These two lines of work are synthesized to suggest that gene regulation changes associated with the evolution of a dorsal laryngeal pitch control pathway in ancestral humans fortuitously strengthened auditory-parietal cortical connections that support beat-based rhythmic processing. More generally, the proposal aims to explain how and why the evolution of strong forebrain auditory-motor integration in the service of learned vocal control led to a capacity and proclivity to synchronize nonvocal movements to the beat. The proposal specifies cortical brain pathways implicated in the origins of human beat-based dancing and leads to testable predictions and suggestions for future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".