Alpha band activity over the sensorimotor cortex during passive music listening correlates with beat tapping performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theories of music perception argue over whether observed motor area activation during passive music listening actively contributes to perception or is the product of a distributed representation. There is a growing amount of evidence linking Alpha rhythms in the motor cortex to action inhibition and imagination during passive music listening. In this work, we examine Alpha band power modulation and its association to beat perception using a sensorimotor synchronization task and a natural music listening task with electroencephalography (EEG). We sought to find an association between Alpha band modulation over the primary motor cortex and beat tapping performance. We found that greater Alpha power correlated with worse tapping performance. These results may point to a negative association between motor inhibition and beat perception and a complementary positive association between movement imagination and beat perception and production. We address these findings in terms of the HAPEM theory proposed by Schubotz (2003). This framework suggests that motor activation reflects a predictive representation formed from audio-motor association cortices, lacking proprioceptive information which could be acquired through musical training.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".