ArticlePloS one2025
Science of music-based citizen science: How seeing influences hearing.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Citizen science engages volunteers to contribute data to scientific projects, often through visual annotation tasks. Hearing based activities are rare and less well understood. Having high quality annotations of performed music structures is essential for reliable algorithmic analysis of recorded music with applications ranging from music information retrieval to music therapy. Music annotations typically begin with an aural input combined with a variety of visual representations, but the impact of the visuals and aural inputs on the annotations are not known. Here, we present a study where participants annotate music segmentation boundaries of variable strengths given only visuals (audio waveform or piano roll) or only audio or both visuals and audio simultaneously. Participants were presented with the set of 33 contrasting theme and variations extracted from a through-recorded performance of Beethoven's 32 Variations in C minor, WoO 80, under differing audiovisual conditions. Their segmentation boundaries were visualized using boundary credence profiles and compared using the unbalanced optimal transport distance, which tracks boundary weights and penalizes boundary removal, and compared to the F-measure. Compared to annotations derived from audio/visual (cross-modal) input (considered as the gold standard for our study), boundary annotations derived from visual (unimodal) input were closer than those derived from audio (unimodal) input. The presence of visuals led to larger peaks in boundary credence profiles, marking clearer global segmentations, while audio helped resolve discrepancies and capture subtle segmentation cues. We conclude that audio and visual inputs can be used as cognitive scaffolding to enhance results in large-scale citizen science annotation of music media and to support data analysis and interpretation. In summary, visuals provide cues for big structures, but complex structural nuances are better discerned by ear.
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.