A cross sectional investigation of the development of rhythmic preferences with motor and perceptual tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The preferred period hypothesis posits a slowing down of motor and perceptual rhythmic preferences with age, both reflecting an increase in the common internal oscillation period. This study further investigates the preferred period hypothesis by improving the measurement of perceptual rhythmic preferences through two tasks, tempo adjustment and tempo judgment, conducted in auditory and visual modalities. The study was conducted with three groups of children (5-6, 8-9, and 11-12 years old), and a group of young adults (21 to 30 years old) during the same time of the day. Correlational analyses show that the relationship between motor and perceptual rhythmic preferences strengthens between childhood and adulthood. Multilevel analyses reveal a general slowing down of motor and perceptual rhythmic preferences, contingent on the task and modality, with distinct trajectories for males and females. Our study indicate that the range of preferred rhythms narrows with age, becoming less variable in young adulthood, at the expense of a single and consistent, default rhythm. In brief, the preferred period appears only in young adults, with no support for the idea of a slowing down of an internal oscillation that would be reflected by both motor and perceptual rhythmic preferences.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".