Across all three task types, joint tapping yields modestly but reliably lower synchronization variability than solo tapping in 4–5-year-olds¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i0negligible
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i0 Synchronization variability was significantly lower during joint tapping than solo tapping across task types. → Yunhee Kim 2026
Evidence¶
Yunhee Kim 2026¶
Yunhee Kim, Doyeon Chae, Jaehwan Jang, Kyeong Taek Oh, Byeong-Sun Park & Min-gu Kim. (2026). Does tapping in sync reflect cognitive control? Links between sensorimotor synchronization, social context, and executive function in early childhood. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-026-00443-5
q3 · i0 · causal · r2
Extended LMM (REML) on log-transformed DTW values including the 50 bpm bimanual task; the pairwise reduction during joint tapping was significant (∆M = -0.05, SE = .02, p = .005), described as "a modest but reliable synchronization benefit across task types".
"The main effect of Social Context was significant, F (1, 1656) = 7.81, p = .005, ηp2 = .005, such that synchronization variability was lower during Joint tapping (M = 2.31, SE = .27, 95% CI [1.14, 3.48]) than during Solo tapping condition"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Hand asymmetries in synchronization vary by task: left-hand variability is greater in sequential unimanual tasks but slightly reversed in the 50 bpm bimanual task — related
- A co-tapping partner reduces synchronization variability significantly more at 150 bpm metronome (near children's SMT) than in music or slow bimanual tasks — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Rhythmic context dominates synchronization variability: music tapping is far less synchronized than metronome tapping, while the 50 bpm bimanual task does not differ from 150 bpm — related
- Slow 50 bpm bimanual tapping in the solo condition is selectively associated with inhibitory control, working memory, and overall EF, though associations do not survive FDR correction — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
joint-tapping-main-effect-variability |
title |
Across all three task types, joint tapping yields modestly but reliably lower synchronization variability than solo tapping in 4–5-year-olds |
description |
Across all three task types, joint tapping yields modestly but reliably lower synchronization variability than solo tapping in 4–5-year-olds |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-27 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — yunhee-kim-2026 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.