Limits...
Synchronization to a bouncing ball with a realistic motion trajectory.

Gan L, Huang Y, Zhou L, Qian C, Wu X - Sci Rep (2015)

Bottom Line: Daily music experience involves synchronizing movements in time with a perceived periodic beat.This auditory advantage of beat synchronization gives rise to the hypotheses that the neural and evolutionary mechanisms underlying beat synchronization are modality-specific.Here, however, we found that synchronization to a periodically bouncing ball with a realistic motion trajectory was not less stable than synchronization to an auditory metronome.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Sun Yat-Sen University, Building 313, 135 Xingang west road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, 510275.

ABSTRACT
Daily music experience involves synchronizing movements in time with a perceived periodic beat. It has been established for over a century that beat synchronization is less stable for the visual than for the auditory modality. This auditory advantage of beat synchronization gives rise to the hypotheses that the neural and evolutionary mechanisms underlying beat synchronization are modality-specific. Here, however, we found that synchronization to a periodically bouncing ball with a realistic motion trajectory was not less stable than synchronization to an auditory metronome. This finding challenges the auditory advantage of beat synchronization, and has important implications for the understanding of the biological substrates of beat synchronization.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Results of control experiments 1 and 2.The bouncing ball sequence in the current study included (1) simulating the effect of gravity and (2) improving movement smoothness. The current 600 ms IOI sequence with the two manipulations was compared with a control sequence without the two manipulations in control experiment 1, and was compared with control sequences without one of the two manipulations in control experiment 2. The results of control experiment 1 (A) showed that combining the two manipulations significantly improved tapping stability. The results of control experiment 2 (B) showed that removing individual manipulations did not yield significant performance differences, although the mean stability was highest for the sequence with both manipulations (GES&MSI vs. GES: t8 = 1.679, p = 0.132, η2 = 0.261; GES&MSI vs. MSI: t8 = 1.931, p = 0.090, η2 = 0.318). GES represents the gravity effect simulation and MSI represents the movement smoothness improvement. GES&MSI refers to the 600 ms IOI bouncing ball sequence as in experiment 1. Other conventions are as in Fig. 2.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4493690&req=5

f4: Results of control experiments 1 and 2.The bouncing ball sequence in the current study included (1) simulating the effect of gravity and (2) improving movement smoothness. The current 600 ms IOI sequence with the two manipulations was compared with a control sequence without the two manipulations in control experiment 1, and was compared with control sequences without one of the two manipulations in control experiment 2. The results of control experiment 1 (A) showed that combining the two manipulations significantly improved tapping stability. The results of control experiment 2 (B) showed that removing individual manipulations did not yield significant performance differences, although the mean stability was highest for the sequence with both manipulations (GES&MSI vs. GES: t8 = 1.679, p = 0.132, η2 = 0.261; GES&MSI vs. MSI: t8 = 1.931, p = 0.090, η2 = 0.318). GES represents the gravity effect simulation and MSI represents the movement smoothness improvement. GES&MSI refers to the 600 ms IOI bouncing ball sequence as in experiment 1. Other conventions are as in Fig. 2.

Mentions: Previous studies have found that the bouncing ball sequence with a velocity that varied according to a rectified sinusoid910 was more effective in improving synchronization than the bouncing ball sequence with a constant velocity14, and it has been suggested that the former sequence is more realistic than the latter sequence10. Notably, synchronization to the bouncing ball sequence with a velocity that varied according to a rectified sinusoid was almost as good as synchronization to an auditory metronome910. Inspired by these advances, we designed a bouncing ball sequence that was even more realistic by two manipulations; (1) simulating the effect of gravity and (2) improving movement smoothness. The results of experiments 1 and 2 showed that synchronization to the current bouncing ball sequence was not poorer than synchronization to the auditory tone sequence (except for the 300 ms IOI sequences). Based on the current observations, it is of interest to determine whether synchronization to the current bouncing ball sequence could be slightly better than synchronization to the bouncing ball sequence with a velocity that varied according to a rectified sinusoid910 (since the latter sequence has been the most effective moving stimulus in improving synchronization and its synchronization performance was slightly less stable than that observed in the auditory metronome condition). This was tested in control experiment 1, in which the current 600 ms IOI bouncing ball sequence with the two manipulations was compared with a control bouncing ball sequence without the two manipulations. We emphasize that the velocity of the control sequence was varied according to a sinusoid, rather than a rectified sinusoid; we did not replicate the stimuli in the previous studies because it has not been described in details how the rectified sinusoid was constructed910. Therefore, the current study did not directly compare the current bouncing ball sequence and the bouncing ball sequence with a velocity that varied according to a rectified sinusoid910. In addition, a typical 60 Hz refresh rate monitor was used and a large movement-distance/ball-size ratio was adopted for the control sequence. Moreover, the effect of each of the two manipulations of the current bouncing ball sequence was examined in control experiment 2, in which the current 600 ms IOI bouncing ball sequence with the two manipulations was compared with the control sequences without one of the two manipulations. The control sequence without the gravity effect simulation was the same as the current 600 ms IOI bouncing ball sequence except its velocity was varied according to a sinusoid, as described above. The control sequence without the movement smoothness improvement was the same as the current 600 ms IOI bouncing ball sequence except a typical 60 Hz refresh rate monitor was used and a large movement-distance/ball-size ratio was adopted, as described above. The results of control experiment 1 showed that combining the two manipulations (i.e., the current bouncing ball sequence (mean stability = 0.946)) significantly improved tapping stability (compared with the control sequence without the two manipulations (mean stability = 0.934)) (t8 = 2.685, p = 0.028, η2 = 0.474) (Fig. 4A). The results of control experiment 2 showed that removing individual manipulations did not yield significant performance differences (although the mean stability (see Table S1) was highest for the current bouncing ball sequence with both manipulations) (Fig. 4B).


Synchronization to a bouncing ball with a realistic motion trajectory.

Gan L, Huang Y, Zhou L, Qian C, Wu X - Sci Rep (2015)

Results of control experiments 1 and 2.The bouncing ball sequence in the current study included (1) simulating the effect of gravity and (2) improving movement smoothness. The current 600 ms IOI sequence with the two manipulations was compared with a control sequence without the two manipulations in control experiment 1, and was compared with control sequences without one of the two manipulations in control experiment 2. The results of control experiment 1 (A) showed that combining the two manipulations significantly improved tapping stability. The results of control experiment 2 (B) showed that removing individual manipulations did not yield significant performance differences, although the mean stability was highest for the sequence with both manipulations (GES&MSI vs. GES: t8 = 1.679, p = 0.132, η2 = 0.261; GES&MSI vs. MSI: t8 = 1.931, p = 0.090, η2 = 0.318). GES represents the gravity effect simulation and MSI represents the movement smoothness improvement. GES&MSI refers to the 600 ms IOI bouncing ball sequence as in experiment 1. Other conventions are as in Fig. 2.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4493690&req=5

f4: Results of control experiments 1 and 2.The bouncing ball sequence in the current study included (1) simulating the effect of gravity and (2) improving movement smoothness. The current 600 ms IOI sequence with the two manipulations was compared with a control sequence without the two manipulations in control experiment 1, and was compared with control sequences without one of the two manipulations in control experiment 2. The results of control experiment 1 (A) showed that combining the two manipulations significantly improved tapping stability. The results of control experiment 2 (B) showed that removing individual manipulations did not yield significant performance differences, although the mean stability was highest for the sequence with both manipulations (GES&MSI vs. GES: t8 = 1.679, p = 0.132, η2 = 0.261; GES&MSI vs. MSI: t8 = 1.931, p = 0.090, η2 = 0.318). GES represents the gravity effect simulation and MSI represents the movement smoothness improvement. GES&MSI refers to the 600 ms IOI bouncing ball sequence as in experiment 1. Other conventions are as in Fig. 2.
Mentions: Previous studies have found that the bouncing ball sequence with a velocity that varied according to a rectified sinusoid910 was more effective in improving synchronization than the bouncing ball sequence with a constant velocity14, and it has been suggested that the former sequence is more realistic than the latter sequence10. Notably, synchronization to the bouncing ball sequence with a velocity that varied according to a rectified sinusoid was almost as good as synchronization to an auditory metronome910. Inspired by these advances, we designed a bouncing ball sequence that was even more realistic by two manipulations; (1) simulating the effect of gravity and (2) improving movement smoothness. The results of experiments 1 and 2 showed that synchronization to the current bouncing ball sequence was not poorer than synchronization to the auditory tone sequence (except for the 300 ms IOI sequences). Based on the current observations, it is of interest to determine whether synchronization to the current bouncing ball sequence could be slightly better than synchronization to the bouncing ball sequence with a velocity that varied according to a rectified sinusoid910 (since the latter sequence has been the most effective moving stimulus in improving synchronization and its synchronization performance was slightly less stable than that observed in the auditory metronome condition). This was tested in control experiment 1, in which the current 600 ms IOI bouncing ball sequence with the two manipulations was compared with a control bouncing ball sequence without the two manipulations. We emphasize that the velocity of the control sequence was varied according to a sinusoid, rather than a rectified sinusoid; we did not replicate the stimuli in the previous studies because it has not been described in details how the rectified sinusoid was constructed910. Therefore, the current study did not directly compare the current bouncing ball sequence and the bouncing ball sequence with a velocity that varied according to a rectified sinusoid910. In addition, a typical 60 Hz refresh rate monitor was used and a large movement-distance/ball-size ratio was adopted for the control sequence. Moreover, the effect of each of the two manipulations of the current bouncing ball sequence was examined in control experiment 2, in which the current 600 ms IOI bouncing ball sequence with the two manipulations was compared with the control sequences without one of the two manipulations. The control sequence without the gravity effect simulation was the same as the current 600 ms IOI bouncing ball sequence except its velocity was varied according to a sinusoid, as described above. The control sequence without the movement smoothness improvement was the same as the current 600 ms IOI bouncing ball sequence except a typical 60 Hz refresh rate monitor was used and a large movement-distance/ball-size ratio was adopted, as described above. The results of control experiment 1 showed that combining the two manipulations (i.e., the current bouncing ball sequence (mean stability = 0.946)) significantly improved tapping stability (compared with the control sequence without the two manipulations (mean stability = 0.934)) (t8 = 2.685, p = 0.028, η2 = 0.474) (Fig. 4A). The results of control experiment 2 showed that removing individual manipulations did not yield significant performance differences (although the mean stability (see Table S1) was highest for the current bouncing ball sequence with both manipulations) (Fig. 4B).

Bottom Line: Daily music experience involves synchronizing movements in time with a perceived periodic beat.This auditory advantage of beat synchronization gives rise to the hypotheses that the neural and evolutionary mechanisms underlying beat synchronization are modality-specific.Here, however, we found that synchronization to a periodically bouncing ball with a realistic motion trajectory was not less stable than synchronization to an auditory metronome.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Sun Yat-Sen University, Building 313, 135 Xingang west road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, 510275.

ABSTRACT
Daily music experience involves synchronizing movements in time with a perceived periodic beat. It has been established for over a century that beat synchronization is less stable for the visual than for the auditory modality. This auditory advantage of beat synchronization gives rise to the hypotheses that the neural and evolutionary mechanisms underlying beat synchronization are modality-specific. Here, however, we found that synchronization to a periodically bouncing ball with a realistic motion trajectory was not less stable than synchronization to an auditory metronome. This finding challenges the auditory advantage of beat synchronization, and has important implications for the understanding of the biological substrates of beat synchronization.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus