Tracking simple and complex sequences

Large, Edward W.; Fink, Philip W.; Kelso, J. A. Scott

doi:10.1007/s004260100069

Cited by 147 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

137

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A surprisingly common approach in the field-regardless of the chosen framework, whether timekeeper-or oscillator-based-is to fit the model's parameter values separately to different conditions, thus yielding different parameter estimates for different perturbation types and even for different perturbation magnitudes within the same perturbation type (see e.g. Thaut et al (1998);Repp (2001b); Schulze et al (2005); Large et al (2002); however see a very recent exception to this common choice by Loehr et al (2011)). Then although the parameter names are the same within each model, it is allowed for instance that the coefficient of the period correction be small for some perturbations and large for some other perturbations, effectively changing the model's correction strategy and thus the interpretation of the data.…”

Section: Different Strategies For Different Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Small perturbations in a finger-tapping task reveal inherent nonlinearities of the underlying error correction mechanism

Bavassi

Tagliazucchi

Laje

2013

Human Movement Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Time estimation is critical for survival and control of a variety of behaviors, both in humans and other animals. Time processing in the few hundred milliseconds range, known as millisecond timing, is involved in motor control, speech generation and recognition, and sensorimotor synchronization like playing music or finger tapping to an external beat. In finger tapping, a mechanistic explanation in terms of neuronal activations of how the brain achieves average synchronization against inherent noise and perturbations in the stimulus sequence is still missing despite considerable research. In this work we show that nonlinear effects are important for the recovery of synchronization following a perturbation (a step change in stimulus period), even for perturbation magnitudes smaller than 10% of the period, which is well below the amount of perturbation needed to display other nonlinear effects like saturation. We build a mathematical model for the error correction mechanism and test its predictions, and further propose a framework that allows us to unify the description of the three common types of perturbations and all perturbation magnitudes with a single set of parameter values. While previous works have proposed that multiple mechanisms/strategies are used for correcting different perturbation conditions (based on fitting the model's parameters separately to different perturbation types and sizes), our results suggest that the synchronization behavior can be interpreted as the outcome of a single mechanism/strategy, and call for a revision of the idea of multiple strategies.

show abstract

Section: Different Strategies For Different Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Small perturbations in a finger-tapping task reveal inherent nonlinearities of the underlying error correction mechanism

Bavassi

Tagliazucchi

Laje

2013

Human Movement Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus at a metronome marking of 75 BPM (800 ms IOI), duplet 8th notes go twice as fast (400 ms IOI), half notes at half the rate (1600 ms IOI), and so forth. It is not clear, however, whether the perceived pulse of the music in this case would be 75 or 150 BPM (Collyer, Broadbent, et al,1994;Large, Fink, & Kelso, 2002;Martens, 2005;McKinney & Moelants, 2006). The situation is even more complicated when one recognizes that the beat may be (and often is) divided not only into duplets, but also triplets, quadruplets, and/or quintuplets or sextuplets, and the subdivision of the beat may change repeatedly over the course of a musical passage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tactus ≠ Tempo: Some Dissociations Between Attentional Focus, Motor Behavior, and Tempo Judgment

London¹

2011

Empirical Musicology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments explored the relationships between surface rhythmic activity, tactus or beat rate, attentional focus, sensorimotor synchronization (tapping), and tempo perception. All involved a rhythmic standard followed by a comparison; the experimental task was a judgment of "slower, same, or faster." In Experiment 1 participants simply judged relative speed; they focused on the beat level in Experiment 2, and they tapped along as they made their judgments in Experiment 3. In all three experiments judgments were highly accurate (89-97% correct, relative to beat-level inter-onset interval) when the standard-comparison involved the same pattern/same tempo, and performed similarly for the same pattern at different tempos (80-83% correct). Performance degraded significantly in other contexts, especially for different patterns at the same tempo. A main effect for pattern (two levels: same vs. different) and a pattern x tempo interaction were observed in all three experiments; a main effect for tempo (collapsed to two levels: same vs. different) occurred only in Experiment 1. Analysis of a subset of the experimental conditions indicated that surface activity was of greater salience than the beat level in some contexts. Tapping along (Experiment 3) did not improve overall performance any more than simply focusing on the tactus level (Experiment 2), and a possible biasing effect of tapping rate on tempo judgment was observed. Thus there is an apparent dissociation between tactus rate, attentional focus, tapping behavior and tempo judgment. This suggests that our perception of musical speed or tempo is more than simple apprehension of the tactus rate.

show abstract

“…(4) When one or more subdivision tones occur between an onset-shifted tone and the next target tone (in 1:n tapping), the PCR is reduced even though the asynchrony between the perturbed tone and the previous tap is the same (Repp, 2002a(Repp, , 2002b(Repp, , 2004c. It appears that both target tones (beats) and subdivision tones function as temporal referents in a hierarchical metrical structure (see also Large, Fink, & Kelso, 2002). (5) In accord with this interpretation, perturbation of a subdivision tone from its expected temporal position results in an involuntary PCR, even though it is not associated with an asynchrony (Repp, 2002a(Repp, , 2002b(Repp, , 2004c.…”

Section: Local Perturbationsmentioning

confidence: 99%