Measuring self‐similarity in empirical signals to understand musical beat perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiencing music often entails the perception of a periodic beat. Despite being a widespread phenomenon across cultures, the nature and neural underpinnings of beat perception remain largely unknown. In the last decade, there has been a growing interest in developing methods to probe these processes, particularly to measure the extent to which beat-related information is contained in behavioral and neural responses. Here, we propose a theoretical framework and practical implementation of an analytic approach to capture beat-related periodicity in empirical signals using frequency-tagging. We highlight its sensitivity in measuring the extent to which the periodicity of a perceived beat is represented in a range of continuous time-varying signals with minimal assumptions. We also discuss a limitation of this approach with respect to its specificity when restricted to measuring beat-related periodicity only from the magnitude spectrum of a signal and introduce a novel extension of the approach based on autocorrelation to overcome this issue. We test the new autocorrelation-based method using simulated signals and by re-analyzing previously published data and show how it can be used to process measurements of brain activity as captured with surface EEG in adults and infants in response to rhythmic inputs. Taken together, the theoretical framework and related methodological advances confirm and elaborate the frequency-tagging approach as a promising window into the processes underlying beat perception and, more generally, temporally coordinated behaviors.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".