Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41410521›Full record

ReviewAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2026

From Finger Taps to Footsteps: Gait as a Model for Investigating and Training Rhythmic Abilities.

Clara Ziane, Simone Dalla Bella

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Clara ZianeInternational Laboratory for Brain, Music and Sound Research (BRAMS), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Simone Dalla BellaInternational Laboratory for Brain, Music and Sound Research (BRAMS), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

Canada Research Chairs (Canada Research Chair in Music Auditory-Motor Skill Learning and New Technologies)Fonds de recherche du Québec - Nature et technologies 2022-2023 - B2X - 313977Fonds de Recherche du Québec Nature et Technologies 2022-2023 - B2X - 313977Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2019-05453
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synchronization of movements to auditory rhythmic cues, such as music or metronomes, often occurs spontaneously. Nonetheless, important interindividual differences exist in auditory-motor synchronization (AMS). Effects of rhythm on movements are partly modulated by rhythmic abilities, which include beat perception, motor production, and sensorimotor integration. These rhythmic abilities are often assessed using finger-tapping tasks, which can be performed in highly controlled environments and are easy to implement. In this article, we present limitations associated with finger-tapping tasks and propose gait as an alternative model for investigating and training rhythmic abilities. We focus on three key elements that differentiate gait from tapping and are critical in assessing AMS: the need to coordinate multiple effectors, emergent timing associated with continuous actions, and movement automaticity. Interestingly, cued-gait interventions (i.e., walking to rhythmic auditory cues for several weeks) have shown positive effects on all aspects of rhythmic abilities, while tapping interventions (e.g., playing tablet-based serious games) might lead to more limited transfer. In sum, gait offers a functionally rich behavioral model that can capture the complexity and ecological validity necessary to study and train AMS.

Indexed as

FingersGaitPeriodicityPsychomotor PerformanceAuditory PerceptionCuesHumansMovementMusicauditory–motor synchronizationfinger tappinggaitrehabilitationrhythmic abilities

Identifiers

PMID41410521
PMCPMC12917938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.