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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Synchronization variability was dramatically higher in the music condition than in the metronome conditions. → Yunhee Kim 2026 q3 i? The 150 bpm metronome and 50 bpm bimanual conditions did not significantly differ from each other (p = .609). → Yunhee Kim 2026 (2)

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 · i3 · causal · r2

Extended LMM on 140 children's log-transformed DTW scores across three task contexts; music showed the highest variability (M = 4.87) versus metronome conditions (M = 1.08 and M = 1.06), with ηp2 = .96.

"The main effect of Task Context was particularly large, F (2, 1656) = 18299.31, p < .001, ηp2 = .96, indicating substantial differences in synchronization variability across rhythmic contexts."

Yunhee Kim 2026 (2)¶

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 · i? · causal · r2

Pairwise comparison within the same extended LMM: the 150 bpm metronome (M = 1.08) and 50 bpm bimanual (M = 1.06) conditions did not significantly differ; equivalence was not otherwise tested.

"whereas the latter two conditions did not significantly differ from one another (p = .609)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Cognitive flexibility shows no significant association with sensorimotor synchronization in any task condition — related
• 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
• Across all three task types, joint tapping yields modestly but reliably lower synchronization variability than solo tapping in 4–5-year-olds — 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 — 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