Trajectory formation during sensorimotor synchronization and syncopation to auditory and visual metronomes

Abstract

Previous work on sensorimotor synchronization has investigated the dynamics of finger tapping and how individual movement trajectories contribute to timing accuracy via asymmetry in movement velocities. The present study investigated sensorimotor synchronization (in-phase) and syncopation (anti-phase) to both an auditory metronome and a visual flashing light at multiple frequencies to understand how individual movement phases contribute to the variability of timekeeping and error correction in different sensory modalities and with different task constraints. Results demonstrate that the proportional time spent in both the upward phase of movement and the holding phase of movement (time spent on the surface of the table) remain relatively invariant across both stimulus modalities and across tapping styles (syncopation and synchronization), but changes with interval duration, increasing as interval duration increases. The time spent in the downward phase of movement did significantly differ across stimulus modality and tapping style, increasing during both visuomotor timing and syncopation, accompanied by a significant decrease in flexion velocity during syncopation. Extension velocity and flexion time were found to be the main contributors to differences between visual and auditory timing, while flexion velocity and flexion time were found to be the main contributors to differences between synchronization and syncopation. No correlations were found between asynchrony and the upward, downward, or holding phases of movement, suggesting the existence of multiple error correction strategies.

Time Perception for Musical Rhythms: Sensorimotor Perspectives on Entrainment, Simulation, and Prediction

“…Neural entrainment characterizes coupling between sensory stimuli and any neural oscillation as measured by electroencephalography (EEG) or magnetoencephalography (MEG) ( Nozaradan et al, 2011 , 2012 ). Overt motor entrainment is coupling between body movements and sensory stimuli, such as musical rhythms ( Balasubramaniam, 2005 ; Repp, 2005b ; Keller and Repp, 2008 ; Repp and Su, 2013 ; Pabst and Balasubramaniam, 2018 ).…”

Motor and Predictive Processes in Auditory Beat and Rhythm Perception

“…Asynchronies are observed when humans tap slightly earlier or later than the beat in a rhythmic stimulus, and negative mean asynchronies are a behavioral indicator that humans actively anticipate upcoming stimuli. Mean tapping asynchronies throughout a rhythmic stimulus are usually negative in the auditory domain, but much more variable in the visual domain (Pabst and Balasubramaniam, 2018). Humans also adjust future tapping response based on temporal mismatch between their movement and the current beat (Balasubramaniam et al, 2004), and overtly tapping along to the beat aids in forming temporal predictions when compared to passively tracking a beat (Morillon and Baillet, 2017).…”

“…Metrical musical stimuli have also elicited activation in the basal ganglia, supplementary motor area, and cerebellum (Grahn and Rowe, 2009). Indeed, the modality bias for human beat perception and rhythmic entrainment for auditory stimuli (Pabst and Balasubramaniam, 2018), and improvements of auditory beat processing when making overt action (Morillon and Baillet, 2017) can be explained by tight connections between auditory and motor regions of the brain. But the activation of motor structures of the brain, even in the absence of overt movement, indicates that the motor system plays a more fundamental role in the formation of abstract predictive models which support sensory perception (Schubotz, 2007;Adams et al, 2013;Patel and Iversen, 2014).…”

Effects of Stimulus Intensity and Frequency on the Force and Timing of Sensorimotor Synchronisation

“…Previous work on relations between movement kinematics and timing has segmented tap cycles into stages, including downward flexion and upward extension (Balasubramaniam et al, 2004), as well as dwell at the target surface (Hove et al, 2014a). Flexion is typically relatively high in velocity, short in duration, and similar across tempi, while extension is lower in velocity, longer in duration, and scales with tempo (Hove et al, 2014a;Pabst & Balasubramaniam, 2018), suggesting that these two tap stages are independent to some degree. The duration of each stage also varies with the style of tapping -for example, flexion times are shorter for sharp 'staccato' than smooth 'legato' taps (Hove et al, 2014a) -which can be influenced by musical experience (Krause et al, 2010).…”