ArticleCommunications psychology2024
Auditory-motor synchronization and perception suggest partially distinct time scales in speech and music.
Article in Communications psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early skill learning is shaped by the offline emergence of expert synergies.Current biology : CB · 2026Article
- Article
- Expert Motor Synergies Emerge Predominantly Offline During Early Skill Learning.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Body percussion and the biomechanical calibration of musical meter: the somatic externalization of meter hypothesis.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Eye blinks synchronize with musical beats during music listening.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Moving rhythmically can facilitate naturalistic speech perception in a noisy environment.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Speech and music might involve specific cognitive rhythmic timing mechanisms related to differences in the dominant rhythmic structure. We investigate the influence of different motor effectors on rate-specific processing in both domains. A perception and a synchronization task involving syllable and piano tone sequences and motor effectors typically associated with speech (whispering) and music (finger-tapping) were tested at slow (~2 Hz) and fast rates (~4.5 Hz). Although synchronization performance was generally better at slow rates, the motor effectors exhibited specific rate preferences. Finger-tapping was advantaged compared to whispering at slow but not at faster rates, with synchronization being effector-dependent at slow, but highly correlated at faster rates. Perception of speech and music was better at different rates and predicted by a fast general and a slow finger-tapping synchronization component. Our data suggests partially independent rhythmic timing mechanisms for speech and music, possibly related to a differential recruitment of cortical motor circuitry.
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.