Synchrony and emotion in children and adults

Abstract

This study examined both the development of synchronisation activities and the way emotion affects these activities in children and adults. Children aged from 3 to 8 years, as well as adults, performed a spontaneous motor tempo (SMT) task and a synchronisation task with a 500-millisecond and 700-millisecond inter-stimulus interval (ISI), followed by a continuation task, in both an emotion-free and an emotional context (High-Arousal, Low-Arousal, and Neutral). The results showed that the SMT was faster and more variable in the younger children. In addition, the younger children found it more difficult to slow down their tapping rate in synchrony with the 700-millisecond ISI, with the result that they quickly returned to their internal tempo in the continuation phase. In contrast, the 8-year-olds' synchronisation performance was close to that of the adults. However, despite developmental changes in synchronisation skills, all the participants produced faster tempi in both the SMT and the synchronisation task for the High-Arousal emotion than for the other emotions. This suggests that emotions induce an automatic distortion of motor timing as has also been observed for the perception of time.

The beneficial effect of synchronized action on motor and perceptual timing in children

“…In this first experiment, we examined to what extent sensorimotor learning improved subsequent temporal performance in a rhythm reproduction task in children and adults, as compared to visual learning alone. Our results confirmed age-related differences in rhythm reproduction ability that have been observed in previous studies of auditory synchronization (Fraisse et al, 1954;McAuley et al, 2006;Monier & Droit-Volet, 2016;Provasi & Bobin-Bègue, 2003) and extend these findings to the visual modality. It should be noted nevertheless that the tapping of the computer key produced a slight sound, which might have inadvertently created a multisensory audiovisual rhythm rather than a purely visual one (though see Manning & Schutz, 2015).…”

“…Our results confirmed age-related differences in rhythm reproduction ability that have been observed in previous studies TA B L E 1 Mean raw scores (and standard deviation) on neuropsychological tests of motor ability, short-term memory and working memory for the three age groups in the three experiments of auditory synchronization (Fraisse et al, 1954;McAuley et al, 2006;Monier & Droit-Volet, 2016;Provasi & Bobin-Bègue, 2003) and extend these findings to the visual modality. Our results confirmed age-related differences in rhythm reproduction ability that have been observed in previous studies TA B L E 1 Mean raw scores (and standard deviation) on neuropsychological tests of motor ability, short-term memory and working memory for the three age groups in the three experiments of auditory synchronization (Fraisse et al, 1954;McAuley et al, 2006;Monier & Droit-Volet, 2016;Provasi & Bobin-Bègue, 2003) and extend these findings to the visual modality.…”

“…During reproduction of auditory rhythms, it has been shown that age-related differences mainly occur with ISIs that are slower (>700 ms) than children's preferred tempo (from 350 to 500-ms inter-tap intervals, ITIs) (Drake, Jones, & Baruch, 2000;Fraisse, Chambon, & Oléron, 1954;McAuley, Jones, Holub, Johnston, & Miller, 2006;Monier & Droit-Volet, 2016;Provasi & Bobin-Bègue, 2003). In order to highlight the developmental differences, we therefore used an ISI of 800 ms, which is slower than the typical SMT.…”

The dynamic effect of context on interval timing in children and adults

“…The temporal underestimation suggests that factors related to motor impulsivity have likely affected the children's temporal reproductions (Droit-Volet, 2010). This is consistent with the results in rhythmic time interval tasks showing that young children have difficulty in reproducing time intervals far from their Spontaneous Motor Tempo (McAuley et al, 2006;Monier & Droit-Volet, 2016). Children indeed have reduced self-control capacities, and as such, it is difficult for them to inhibit initial response (e.g.…”

Steady-state evoked potentials distinguish brain mechanisms of self-paced versus synchronization finger tapping

“…The average SMT (SP SMT condition) in this study (931 ms) was slow compared to the population mean (around 600 ms; Fraisse, 1982). However, the values measured here still fit within the range of inter-individual variability reported in the literature (Michaelis, Wiener, & Thompson, 2014;Monier & Droit-Volet, 2016;Schwartze, Keller, Patel, & Kotz, 2011;Sternad, Dean, & Newell, 2000). In the current study, the participants kept their arms along-side their body (sagittal plane).…”