Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33061902›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2020

Motor and Predictive Processes in Auditory Beat and Rhythm Perception.

Shannon Proksch, Daniel C Comstock, Butovens Médé, Alexandria Pabst, Ramesh Balasubramaniam

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Critical Review on the Development and Evolution of Beat Perception.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Continuous Theta Burst to Supplementary Motor Area Modulates Groove.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Auditory imagery ability influences accuracy when singing with altered auditory feedback.Musicae scientiae : the journal of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Shannon ProkschSensorimotor Neuroscience Laboratory, Cognitive & Information Sciences, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA, United States.
Daniel C ComstockSensorimotor Neuroscience Laboratory, Cognitive & Information Sciences, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA, United States.
Butovens MédéSensorimotor Neuroscience Laboratory, Cognitive & Information Sciences, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA, United States.
Alexandria PabstSensorimotor Neuroscience Laboratory, Cognitive & Information Sciences, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA, United States.
Ramesh BalasubramaniamSensorimotor Neuroscience Laboratory, Cognitive & Information Sciences, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, we review recent advances in research on rhythm and musical beat perception, focusing on the role of predictive processes in auditory motor interactions. We suggest that experimental evidence of the motor system's role in beat perception, including in passive listening, may be explained by the generation and maintenance of internal predictive models, concordant with the Active Inference framework of sensory processing. We highlight two complementary hypotheses for the neural underpinnings of rhythm perception: The Action Simulation for Auditory Prediction hypothesis (Patel and Iversen, 2014) and the Gradual Audiomotor Evolution hypothesis (Merchant and Honing, 2014) and review recent experimental progress supporting each of these hypotheses. While initial formulations of ASAP and GAE explain different aspects of beat-based timing-the involvement of motor structures in the absence of movement, and physical entrainment to an auditory beat respectively-we suggest that work under both hypotheses provide converging evidence toward understanding the predictive role of the motor system in the perception of rhythm, and the specific neural mechanisms involved. We discuss future experimental work necessary to further evaluate the causal neural mechanisms underlying beat and rhythm perception.

Indexed as

beat perceptionmotor planningmotor systemrhythmsensorimotor systemtiming

Identifiers

PMID33061902
PMCPMC7518112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.