MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417363248 · doi:10.1038/s44271-025-00360-0

4/4 and more, rhythmic complexity more strongly predicts groove in common meters

2025· article· en· W4417363248 on OpenAlexafffund
Connor Spiech, Guilherme Schmidt Câmara, Julian Fuhrer, Virginia B. Penhune

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityInternational Laboratory for Brain, Music and Sound ResearchCentre for Research on Brain Language and Music
FundersNorges ForskningsrådConcordia UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsRhythmGroove (engineering)MetreMetric (unit)Series (stratigraphy)Regression analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pleasurable urge to move to music, termed "groove," is thought to arise from the tension between top-down metric expectations or predictions and rhythmic complexity. Specifically, groove ratings are highest for moderately complex rhythms, balancing expectation and surprise. To test this, meter and rhythmic complexity need to be manipulated independently to assess their impact on groove. Thus, we compared Western listeners' ratings for musical clips of varying rhythmic complexity composed in either the most common Western meter (4/4) or less common meters (e.g., 7/8). In several behavioral studies (Experiment 1, N = 143; Experiment 2, N = 120; Experiment 3, N = 120), we used Bayesian regression to show that groove is greatest for moderately complex rhythms, but only in 4/4. In non-4/4 meters, simpler rhythms elicited the greatest groove. This provides support for the theory that bottom-up rhythmic features interact with meter in a way that shapes the pleasurable urge to move to music.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications PsychologySame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207