ArticlePsychophysiology2025
Active Inference in Music Perception: Motor Engagement to Syncopation Modulates Rhythmic Prediction Error.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2025. 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.
- Four sources of pleasure associated with the experience of groove.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Hearing movement, seeing sound: multimodal predictive coding in pianist-dancer interaction.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Active Inference in Music Perception: Motor Engagement to Syncopation Modulates Rhythmic Prediction Error.Psychophysiology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In active inference, the sensory surprisal (a log-probability of sensory data) of the prediction error between prediction and sensory input is modulated by action. The urge to move (groove) induced by syncopation, which provides metric uncertainty, can be considered a case of active inference in music perception. The present study investigated whether rhythmic prediction error is modulated by improving the precision of rhythm perception through tapping in sync with the rhythm. Thirty-five participants listened to a rhythmic sequence while tapping the half-note beat (tapping condition) or holding a pillow (no-tapping condition), and electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded. In both conditions, the onset of the syncopated tone was rarely earlier (timing deviant: 20%) than the standard (80%). The timing deviant elicited mismatch negativity (MMN) in both the tapping and no-tapping conditions, reflecting a prediction error in timing. Moreover, the MMN was larger in the tapping condition than in the no-tapping condition, which may indicate increased precision due to tapping, even when motor-related potentials were controlled for. Neural entrainment was measured by calculating intertrial phase coherence (ITPC), which reflects oscillatory activity synchronized to stimulus frequency, and ITPC differed between the two conditions at beat-related frequencies. These results suggest that tapping enhanced meter and beat information and reduced the sensory surprisal of syncopation, resulting in a larger precision-weighted prediction error. These effects were not due to physiological arousal differences between conditions, as assessed by EEG power and heart rate variability. These results are discussed as evidence that bodily engagement modulates sensory prediction error within the active inference framework.
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.