ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2022
Systematic errors in the perception of rhythm.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cortico-striatal network architecture shapes rhythmic biases in music.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2026Article
- Error-driven intralimb and interlimb adaptations under asymmetric treadmill and cueing conditions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Relationships between the expectations based on the regularity of preceding sound sequences and the medial olivocochlear reflex.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One hypothesis for why humans enjoy musical rhythms relates to their prediction of when each beat should occur. The ability to predict the timing of an event is important from an evolutionary perspective. Therefore, our brains have evolved internal mechanisms for processing the progression of time. However, due to inherent noise in neural signals, this prediction is not always accurate. Theoretical considerations of optimal estimates suggest the occurrence of certain systematic errors made by the brain when estimating the timing of beats in rhythms. Here, we tested psychophysically whether these systematic errors exist and if so, how they depend on stimulus parameters. Our experimental data revealed two main types of systematic errors. First, observers perceived the time of the last beat of a rhythmic pattern as happening earlier than actual when the inter-beat interval was short. Second, the perceived time of the last beat was later than the actual when the inter-beat interval was long. The magnitude of these systematic errors fell as the number of beats increased. However, with many beats, the errors due to long inter-beat intervals became more apparent. We propose a Bayesian model for these systematic errors. The model fits these data well, allowing us to offer possible explanations for how these errors occurred. For instance, neural processes possibly contributing to the errors include noisy and temporally asymmetric impulse responses, priors preferring certain time intervals, and better-early-than-late loss functions. We finish this article with brief discussions of both the implications of systematic errors for the appreciation of rhythm and the possible compensation by the brain's motor system during a musical performance.
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.