Synchronization to a bouncing ball with a realistic motion trajectory

Gan, Lei; Huang, Yingyu; Zhou, Liang; Qian, Cheng; Wu, Xi

doi:10.1038/srep11974

Cited by 54 publications

(131 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, consistent with previous findings , we found evidence of higher order error correction (negative Lag 3 autocorrelation) only when auditory information was present, and in a new finding, particularly when it was less salient (complex rhythm, small magnitude condition).The current study contributes to a growing literature demonstrating that the auditory advantage in sensorimotor synchronization, first observed in comparisons between (auditory) metronome ticks and (visual) flashing lights (e.g., Bartlett & Bartlett, 1959;Chen et al, 2002;Dunlap, 1910;Jäncke et al, 2000;Patel et al, 2005;Repp & Penel, 2002, 2004, may be more nuanced than previously thought. For example, recent studies have shown that visual performance for simple rhythms improves to auditory levels when visual information is continuous rather than discrete (Gan et al, 2015;Iversen et al, 2015). Here, we show that, when made perceptually salient, tactile synchronization to simple rhythms can equal auditory synchronization.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Synchronizing to auditory and tactile metronomes: a test of the auditory-motor enhancement hypothesis

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans show a striking advantage for synchronizing movements with discretely timed auditory metronomes (e.g., clicking sounds) over temporally matched visual metronomes (e.g., flashing lights), suggesting enhanced auditorymotor coupling for rhythmic processing. Does the auditory advantage persist for other modalities (not just vision)? Here, nonmusicians finger tapped to the beat of auditory, tactile, and bimodal metronomes. Stimulus magnitude and rhythmic complexity were also manipulated. In conditions involving a large area of stimulation and simple rhythmic sequences, tactile synchronization closely matched auditory. Although this finding shows a limitation to the hypothesis of enhanced auditory-motor coupling for rhythmic processing, other findings clearly support it. First, there was a robust advantage with auditory information for synchronization with complex rhythm sequences; moreover, in complex sequences a measure of error correction was found only when auditory information was present. Second, higher order grouping was evident only when auditory information was present.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Synchronizing to auditory and tactile metronomes: a test of the auditory-motor enhancement hypothesis

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous research suggested that these features might be critical to make balls match beeps (see above), but it is also possible that continuous movement and/or the perception of collision are sufficient to elicit the effect. The studies that showed equivalence between balls and beeps (Hove et al, 2013b; Gan et al, 2015; Iversen et al, 2015) differed from earlier ones in that they used rectified sinusoidal trajectories; however, they were also innovative in the use of continuous movement and a collision point (the imaginary ground, marked with a horizontal line). For instance, the earlier study of Hove et al (2010) used little or no collision information, and that of Hove et al (2013a) used only seven steps per beat cycle, which compromises the continuity of the stimulus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, visual stimuli with apparent motion (e.g., moving bars, bouncing balls) seem to outperform static visual stimuli (flashes) in driving synchronization (Hove and Keller, 2010; Hove et al, 2010, 2013a; Gan et al, 2015; Iversen et al, 2015), especially when the direction of stimulus and response movements is compatible (e.g., finger down for bar down, Hove and Keller, 2010; Hove et al, 2010). Second, visual stimuli with motion seem able to match auditory ones in driving synchronization.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another study found that synchronization with the bouncing ball was as accurate as synchronization with beeps (Iversen et al, 2015), even though it was not the case for all participants. More recently, Gan et al (2015) increased the realism of the bouncing ball trajectory by simulating gravity and increasing movement smoothness, and they found indistinguishable synchronization performances for balls and beeps. Overall, this research indicated that moving visual stimuli (moving bars, bouncing balls) may drive synchronization more effectively than previously thought.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Is it due to the lower temporal resolution of vision in perception , requiring increased reliance on spatial information (Hove et al, 2013a)? Or is it due to constraints pertaining to sensorimotor coupling mechanisms (Gan et al, 2015)? Does the cognitive system prefer moving visual stimuli for processing or just for guiding action ?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Moving Stimuli Facilitate Synchronization But Not Temporal Perception

Silva

Castro

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies have shown that a moving visual stimulus (e.g., a bouncing ball) facilitates synchronization compared to a static stimulus (e.g., a flashing light), and that it can even be as effective as an auditory beep. We asked a group of participants to perform different tasks with four stimulus types: beeps, siren-like sounds, visual flashes (static) and bouncing balls. First, participants performed synchronization with isochronous sequences (stimulus-guided synchronization), followed by a continuation phase in which the stimulus was internally generated (imagery-guided synchronization). Then they performed a perception task, in which they judged whether the final part of a temporal sequence was compatible with the previous beat structure (stimulus-guided perception). Similar to synchronization, an imagery-guided variant was added, in which sequences contained a gap in between (imagery-guided perception). Balls outperformed flashes and matched beeps (powerful ball effect) in stimulus-guided synchronization but not in perception (stimulus- or imagery-guided). In imagery-guided synchronization, performance accuracy decreased for beeps and balls, but not for flashes and sirens. Our findings suggest that the advantages of moving visual stimuli over static ones are grounded in action rather than perception, and they support the hypothesis that the sensorimotor coupling mechanisms for auditory (beeps) and moving visual stimuli (bouncing balls) overlap.

show abstract

Sensorimotor Synchronization and Neural Entrainment to Imagined Rhythms in Individuals With Proficient Imagery Ability

Whitton,

Sreenan,

Luo

et al. 2024

J of Neuroscience Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sensorimotor synchronization (SMS) is the temporal coordination of motor movements with external or imagined stimuli. Finger‐tapping studies indicate better SMS performance with auditory or tactile stimuli compared to visual. However, SMS with a visual rhythm can be improved by enriching stimulus properties (e.g., spatiotemporal content) or individual differences (e.g., one's vividness of auditory imagery). We previously showed that higher self‐reported vividness of auditory imagery led to more consistent synchronization–continuation performance when participants continued without a guiding visual rhythm. Here, we examined the contribution of imagery to the SMS performance of proficient imagers, including an auditory or visual distractor task during the continuation phase. While the visual distractor task had minimal effect, SMS consistency was significantly worse when the auditory distractor task was present. Our electroencephalography analysis revealed beat‐related neural entrainment, only when the visual or auditory distractor tasks were present. During continuation with the auditory distractor task, the neural entrainment showed an occipital electrode distribution, suggesting the involvement of visual imagery. Unique to SMS continuation with the auditory distractor task, we found neural and sub‐vocal (measured with electromyography) entrainment at the three‐beat pattern frequency. In this most difficult condition, proficient imagers employed both beat‐ and pattern‐related imagery strategies. However, this combination was insufficient to restore SMS consistency to that observed with visual or no distractor task. Our results suggest that proficient imagers effectively utilized beat‐related imagery in one modality when imagery in another modality was limited.

show abstract

Synchronization to a bouncing ball with a realistic motion trajectory

Cited by 54 publications

References 17 publications

Synchronizing to auditory and tactile metronomes: a test of the auditory-motor enhancement hypothesis

Synchronizing to auditory and tactile metronomes: a test of the auditory-motor enhancement hypothesis

Moving Stimuli Facilitate Synchronization But Not Temporal Perception

Sensorimotor Synchronization and Neural Entrainment to Imagined Rhythms in Individuals With Proficient Imagery Ability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About