Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29909429›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2019

Task-set control, chunking, and hierarchical timing in rhythm production.

Lars D Hestermann, Johan Wagemans, Ralf T Krampe

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lars D HestermannBrain and Cognition, University of Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, PO box 3711, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. LarsDietmar.Hestermann@kuleuven.be.
Johan WagemansBrain and Cognition, University of Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, PO box 3711, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Ralf T KrampeBrain and Cognition, University of Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, PO box 3711, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek G.0379.06Methusalem Grant METH/08/02 and METH/14/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigated task-set control processes and chunking in 16 novices and 16 amateur musicians, who produced unimanual rhythms in three experimental conditions: low-level timing tasks required isochronous tapping at constant target durations; sequencing tasks consisted of individual rhythmic patterns comprising multiple target durations; the task-set control condition required alternations between two rhythmic patterns. According to our hierarchical timing control model conditions differed in their task-set control demands necessary to provide rhythm programs for the sequencing of individual intervals. Transitions at predicted chunk boundaries were marked by increased frequencies of sequence errors, relative lengthening of intervals preceding the switch to a new rhythm chunk, and increased variabilities in intervals immediately following a switch. Amateur musicians showed superior timing (less variability) in complex rhythm tasks. Moreover, they made fewer sequence errors than novices at set-switch points with their error patterns suggesting that they relied on larger chunks compared with novices. Our findings elucidate the time course of task reconfiguration processes in rhythm production and the role of chunking in the context of musical skill.

Indexed as

MusicAcoustic StimulationAttentionAuditory PerceptionFemaleHumansMaleMemoryPsychomotor Performance

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.