Dynamical incompatibilities in paced finger tapping experiments

TL;DR

This paper demonstrates that responses to different types of perturbations in paced finger tapping are dynamically incompatible when tested separately, but can be unified under a single dynamical system when perturbations are randomized within the same experiment, highlighting the importance of temporal context.

Contribution

It reveals that different perturbation types in finger tapping are incompatible across experiments but can be unified under one model with randomized presentation, clarifying contradictory findings.

Findings

Responses to different perturbation types are dynamically incompatible across separate experiments.

Randomizing perturbation types within the same experiment yields compatible responses.

A single dynamical system can model responses to all perturbation types when context is considered.

Abstract

The behavioral description of the sensorimotor synchronization phenomenon in humans is exhaustive, mostly by using variations of the traditional paced finger-tapping task. This task helps unveil the inner workings of the error-correction mechanism responsible for the resynchronization after a perturbation to the period of the stimuli sequence. Yet, fundamental contradictions still exist among different works in the literature. One of such contradictions only emerges after comparing the two most-common period perturbation types: step changes and phase shifts. The stimulus sequence is exactly the same in both perturbation types up to and including the (unexpected) perturbed stimulus. Why then would the timing of the next response be different between perturbation types, as observed? The explanation lies in the buildup of different temporal contexts during the experiments that recalibrate the error-correction mechanism. Here we show, both experimentally and theoretically, that responses to different perturbation types are dynamically incompatible when they occur in separate experiments. That is, they can't be represented by the same underlying dynamical system, thus explaining many contradictory results and the difficulty in reproducing both types of perturbations with a single mathematical model. On the other hand, if both perturbation types are presented at random during the same experiment then the responses are compatible with each other and can be construed as produced by a unique underlying mechanism. We conclude that a single underlying dynamical system can represent the response to all perturbation types, signs, and sizes, which is nevertheless recalibrated by temporal context. Our results offer a ground for performing better comparisons in paced finger tapping and extend the usable range of data beyond the perturbed stimulus and into the information-rich resynchronization phase.