Fig 1.
Examples of rhythms for each condition.
Each rhythm as used in the experiment is constructed from two of the original 16 grid-point rhythms, followed by a final tone, for a total of 33 grid points. The spacing between the two halves of the rhythm and before the final tone is for viewing purposes only. In the concatenation of the rhythms, the isochronicity of the grid-points was preserved. Note that the number of missing beats and number of accents off the beat refer to counterevidence in a rhythm of 16 grid-points. Sound examples for each condition are available as Supporting Information. S1–S10 Sounds are examples of temporal rhythms from conditions 1–10 respectively, and S11–S20 Sounds are examples of intensity rhythms from conditions 1–10 respectively. B = beat (positions 1, 5, 9, and 13); O = off the beat (positions 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16); (B) = ambiguous (positions 3, 7, 11, and 15; off the beat when subdivided into four beats of four sixteenth notes; on the beat when subdivided into eight beats of two eighth notes).
Table 1.
Characteristics of the rhythms used in Experiment 1.
Fig 2.
Distribution and normalization of ratings.
A) Histograms of ratings from Experiment 1 and 2. B) Normalizations obtained with the ordinal regression for Experiment 1 and 2. The area under the curve for each rating corresponds to the proportion of responses for that rating.
Fig 3.
Estimated normalized ratings for all conditions in Experiment 1.
For ease of visualization, participants were divided into two groups for this figure. Estimates are given for participants with less than 2 years of musical training (musical novices) and participants with more than 2 years of musical training (musical experts). Note that in the statistical analysis, musical training was included as a continuous variable and participants were not divided into groups. In the normalized scale, negative numbers indicate “easier to tap to” and positive numbers indicate “more difficult to tap to”. Error bars indicate 2 standard errors.
Table 2.
Results of the ordinal regression in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2.
Fig 4.
Interactions between beats missing and type and between beats missing and musical training in Experiment 1.
As in Fig 3, for the chart on the right, depicting the interaction between musical training and beats missing, participants were divided into two groups for ease of visualization. Estimates are given for participants with less than 2 years of musical training (musical novices) and participants with more than 2 years of musical training (musical experts). In the statistical analysis, musical training was included as a continuous variable and participants were not divided into groups. For both charts, note that in the normalized scale, negative numbers indicate “easier to tap to” and positive numbers indicate “more difficult to tap to”. Error bars indicate 2 standard errors.
Table 3.
Characteristics of the rhythms used in Experiment 2.
Fig 5.
Estimated normalized ratings for all conditions in Experiment 2.
As in Figs 3 and 4, for ease of visualization, participants were divided into two groups for this figure. Estimates are given for participants with less than 2 years of musical training (musical novices) and participants with more than 2 years of musical training (musical experts). Note that in the statistical analysis, musical training was included as a continuous variable and participants were not divided into groups. In the normalized scale, negative numbers indicate “easier to tap to” and positive numbers indicate “more difficult to tap to”. Error bars indicate 2 standard errors.
Fig 6.
Interactions between beats missing and type and between beats missing and musical training in Experiment 2.
As in Fig 4, for the chart on the right, depicting the interaction between musical training and beats missing, participants were divided into two groups for ease of visualization. Estimates are given for participants with less than 2 years of musical training (musical novices) and participants with more than 2 years of musical training (musical experts). Note that in the statistical analysis, musical training was included as a continuous variable and participants were not divided into groups. Note that for both charts, in the normalized scale, negative numbers indicate “easier to tap to” and positive numbers indicate “more difficult to tap to”. Error bars indicate 2 standard errors.