![]() Finally, by using tasks that probe individuals, rather than groups, laboratory studies can focus on rhythmic abilities of the individual, rather than rhythms that are emergent from group interactions. tapping to a non-metric rhythm), but laboratory studies may show that the capability to do so is present. Related to this, a human or non-human animal may never show a certain rhythmic behaviour in its natural environment if it is not functionally relevant (e.g. By focusing on the processing of artificially constructed sequences of simple tones or pulses that are not necessarily tied to a specific function, laboratory studies are well suited to probe whether other animal species can also apply rhythmic abilities flexibly across different contexts, stimuli and motor patterns. Second, humans have the ability to perceive and produce arbitrary rhythmic stimuli outside of a functional context. The use of artificial stimuli in which only one or a few carefully controlled components are present allows for testing exactly which rhythmic aspects are perceived or drive a particular response. For example, rhythmic calls often contain multiple types of structure, both in time and in order. First, by using arbitrary stimuli in the laboratory, the various components of rhythms and rhythmic behaviour that co-occur in the natural environment can be studied in isolation. ![]() rhythms and rhythmic behaviours not found in the natural environment or behaviour of a species) can be very effective to study the cognitive mechanisms underlying the production and perception of rhythms. Laboratory studies using arbitrary and highly controlled stimuli and tasks (e.g. Such rhythmic behaviours may not be related to a general ability in an individual to perceive and/or produce arbitrary rhythmic patterns, and the cognitive architecture underlying this ability. Second, while many important insights about rhythmic behaviour result from observations in the natural environment (see, this volume), rhythmic features of natural behaviour may have evolved in a specific functional context, or may be emergent from group behaviour. Indeed, specific components of rhythmic abilities may differ between human and non-human animals, such as the ability to perceive a regular beat, and the ability to perceive hierarchical rhythmical structure. First, to compare rhythmic abilities across species, we must decompose these abilities into components, rather than considering them as one entity. One of the challenges in cross-species comparisons of rhythmic abilities lies in the definition of what constitutes rhythmic behaviour. It is currently unclear which behaviours exhibited by different species result from similar underlying rhythmic abilities and cognitive mechanisms, and which can be considered qualitatively different. However, the specific rhythmic behaviours exhibited by different species vary wildly, from humans dancing to a regular musical beat, to rhythmic katydid calls, to bird vocalizations containing precisely timed rhythmic patterns. To understand the origin and function of rhythmic behaviour and the cognitive mechanisms underlying it, cross-species comparisons can be informative. Rhythmic behaviour is ubiquitous in both human and non-human animals. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Synchrony and rhythm interaction: from the brain to behavioural ecology’. For future research, we suggest a careful choice of paradigm to aid cross-species comparisons, and a critical consideration of the multifaceted abilities that underlie rhythmic behaviour. ![]() Many experiments also do not differentiate between possible components of rhythmic abilities, such as processing of single temporal intervals, rhythmic patterns, a regular beat or hierarchical metrical structures. By contrast, research in mammals has primarily focused on rhythm production rather than perception. Many bird species have been tested on rhythm perception, but research on rhythm production abilities in the same birds is lacking. We identify several gaps in what is known about rhythmic abilities. Here, we provide an overview of experimental findings on rhythmic abilities in human and non-human animals, while critically considering the wide variety of paradigms used. Rhythmic abilities have been examined in the laboratory with explicit and implicit perception tasks, and with production tasks, such as sensorimotor synchronization, with stimuli ranging from isochronous sequences of artificial sounds to human music. Laboratory experiments combined with highly controlled stimuli and tasks can be very effective in probing the cognitive architecture underlying rhythmic abilities. Rhythmic behaviour is ubiquitous in both human and non-human animals, but it is unclear whether the cognitive mechanisms underlying the specific rhythmic behaviours observed in different species are related.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |