ArticlePloS one2019
Interpersonal and intrapersonal entrainment of self-paced tapping rate.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- In sync with oneself: spontaneous intrapersonal coordination and the effect of cognitive load.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- The relationship between stability of interpersonal coordination and inter-brain EEG synchronization during anti-phase tapping.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Interpersonal sensorimotor communication shapes intrapersonal coordination in a musical ensemble.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Modality-specific attractor dynamics in dyadic entrainment.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Entrainment is a ubiquitous property not only of interacting non-linear dynamical systems but also of human movements. In the study reported here, two premises of entrainment theory were investigated in a tapping task conducted in both interpersonal (i.e. between individuals) and intrapersonal (i.e. between effectors) conditions. Hypothesis 1 was that interacting oscillatory systems should demonstrate synchronisation, which was predicted to emerge as in-phase tapping behaviour in both inter- and intrapersonal conditions. Support for Hypothesis 1 was observed in the in-phase synchronisation of tapping in both individual bimanual trials and uni-manual and bimanual tapping in dyads. By contrast, Hypothesis 2 was that the oscillatory system with the faster initial rate would decelerate, whereas the one with the slower initial rate would accelerate, as manifest in increased self-paced tapping rates amongst participants with initially slower rates and decreased rates amongst ones who initially tapped at faster rates. However, that pattern predicted in Hypothesis 2 was not observed; on the contrary, all participants increased their tapping rates in interpersonal conditions, which occurred significantly amongst participants with the lowest preferred tapping rates. Such an outcome indicates a novel aspect of synchronised movement in humans that warrants further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.