Fig 1.
Schematic of hypothesized relationships between performance on Beat tapping and Memory/Sequencing tests.
Fig 2.
Scatterplots displaying the relationship between performance on rhythm tests.
Tempo adaptation error correlated with metronome tapping variability (r = 0.51, p < 0.001), and remembering sequences correlated with drumming along to sequences (r = 0.73, p < 0.001). No other correlations were significant (p > 0.05). To ensure normality of data paced variability data has been log-transformed and tapping along to sequences data has been rau-transformed.
Table 1.
r-values and p-values for Pearson’s correlations comparing performance on all four rhythm tests.
Significant relationships are indicated via boldface.
Table 2.
Factor loadings from generalized least squares factor analysis.
Boldface indicates loadings of greater than 0.3.
Fig 3.
Performance on metronome tapping and sequence memory tests for two example participants.
The left-hand column displays a histogram of intervals between drum onsets normalized by the target inter-onset-interval of each condition (for example, an interval of 550 ms in the 500 ms condition would be converted to 1.1). The right-hand column displays a histogram of scores on each of the 30 rhythm memory trials; the vertical red line indicates median performance. Example participant #1 (top) could tap consistently to a metronome but performed poorly on the memory test, while example participant #2 (bottom) tapped variably to a metronome but was able to remember the majority of the rhythms.