Timing skills and expertise: discrete and continuous timed movements among musicians and athletes

Abstract

Introduction: Movement-based expertise relies on precise timing of movements and the capacity to predict the timing of events. Music performance involves discrete rhythmic actions that adhere to regular cycles of timed events, whereas many sports involve continuous movements that are not timed in a cyclical manner. It has been proposed that the precision of discrete movements relies on event timing (clock mechanism), whereas continuous movements are controlled by emergent timing. We examined whether movement-based expertise influences the timing mode adopted to maintain precise rhythmic actions.

Materials and method: Timing precision was evaluated in musicians, athletes and control participants. Discrete and continuous movements were assessed using finger-tapping and circle-drawing tasks, respectively, based on the synchronization-continuation paradigm. In Experiment 1, no auditory feedback was provided in the continuation phase of the trials, whereas in Experiment 2 every action triggered a feedback tone.

Results: Analysis of precision in the continuation phase indicated that athletes performed significantly better than musicians and controls in the circle-drawing task, whereas musicians were more precise than controls in the finger tapping task. Interestingly, musicians were also more precise than controls in the circle-drawing task. RESULTS also showed that the timing mode adopted was dependent on expertise and the presence of auditory feedback.

Discussion: RESULTS showed that movement-based expertise is associated with enhanced timing, but these effects depend on the nature of the training. Expertise was found to influence the timing strategy adopted to maintain precise rhythmic movements, suggesting that event and emergent timing mechanisms are not strictly tied to specific tasks, but can both be adopted to achieve precise timing.

Keywords: emergent timing; event timing; expertise; music; sports; training.

Figure 1

Coefficient of Variation (CV) for the circle-drawing and finger-tapping tasks per group in Experiment 1. Standard error bars are shown. Significant pairwise differences are marked with an asterisk (^*p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.001).

Figure 2

Slope for the circle-drawing and finger-tapping tasks per group in Experiment 1. For each participant and for each task, slope values were obtained from a linear regression of detrended variance (averaged across trials) against squared target durations (600 and 800 ms²). Lower slope values indicate lower duration-dependent variability. Standard error bars are shown. Significant pairwise differences are marked with an asterisk (^*p < 0.05).

Figure 3

Coefficient of Variation (CV) per group in Experiment 2. Standard error bars are shown.

Figure 4

Slope for the circle-drawing and finger-tapping tasks per group in Experiment 2. Standard error bars are shown.

Figure 5

Lag-one autocorrelation values averaged across tempi by Group and Experiment on the circle-drawing and finger-tapping tasks. Auditory feedback was provided in Experiment 2 only. Note: Groups of participants in Experiment 2 are different from those in Experiment 1.