Ito et al.
Journal of Physiological Anthropology(2023) 42:10
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40101-023-00327-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Journal of
Physiological Anthropology

Open AccessHigher synchronization stability with piano
experience: relationship with finger
and presentation modality
Kanami Ito1, Tatsunori Watanabe1,2*, Takayuki Horinouchi1, Takuya Matsumoto1,3, Keisuke Yunoki1,
Haruki Ishida1 and Hikari Kirimoto1*   

Abstract
Background Synchronous finger tapping to external sensory stimuli is more stable for audiovisual combined stimuli
than sole auditory or visual stimuli. In addition, piano players are superior in synchronous tapping and manipulating
the ring and little fingers as compared to inexperienced individuals. However, it is currently unknown whether theability to synchronize to external sensory stimuli with the ring finger is at the level of the index finger in piano players.
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of piano experience on synchronization stability between the index
and ring fingers using auditory, visual, and audiovisual combined stimuli.
Methods Thirteen piano players and thirteen novices participated in this study. They were instructed to tap with
their index or ring finger synchronously to auditory, visual, and audiovisual combined stimuli. The stimuli were
presented from an electronic metronome at 1 Hz, and the tapping was performed 30 times in each condition. We
analyzed standard deviation of intervals between the stimulus onset and the tap onset as synchronization stability.
Results Synchronization stability for visual stimuli was lower during ring than index finger tapping in novices;
however, this decline was absent in piano players. Also, piano players showed the higher synchronization stability foraudiovisual combined stimuli than sole visual and auditory stimuli when tapping with the index finger. On the other
hand, in novices, synchronization stability was higher for audiovisual combined stimuli than only visual stimuli.
Conclusions These findings suggest that improvements of both sensorimotor processing and finger motor control
by piano practice would contribute to superior synchronization stability.
Keywords Tapping, Sensorimotor synchronization, Multisensory integration, Finger motor control, Musicalexperience*Correspondence:
Tatsunori Watanabe
t_watanabe3@auhw.ac.jp
Hikari Kirimoto
hkirimoto@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to theoriginal author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images orother third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of thislicence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creat​iveco​
mmons.​org/​publi​cdoma​in/​zero/1.​0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Ito et al. Journal of Physiological Anthropology(2023) 42:10

Background
Finger tapping tasks are widely used to study rhythmic
motor control both with and without a pacing rhythm. In
externally paced tapping, participants tap with their finger synchronously to external rhythms that are presented
auditorily or visually, and the synchronization stability
is commonly evaluated quantitatively using asynchrony
time between the tap and stimulus presentation.
In previous studies, synchronization stability has been
demonstrated to be higher for auditory than visual flash
stimuli [1–4]. The possible explanation of this poor synchronization to visual flash stimuli is the longer temporal
discrimination threshold for visual stimuli as comparedwith auditory stimuli [5] or the less frequent synchronized movements to visual stimuli in daily life [6]. Meanwhile, it has been reported that synchronization stability
for visual stimuli can be improved to the level nearly close
to that for auditory stimuli by adding their movement
components. Specifically, synchronization is more accurate with a bouncing ball or an up-down moving bar (ona monitor) than visual flash stimuli [7–11]. Furthermore,
recent studies have shown that synchronization stability
is higher when tapping to audiovisual combined stimuli
compared to sole auditory or visual stimuli [12–14].
In addition to the types of presentation modality (auditory, visual, and audiovisual), musical training can affectsynchronization stability. Indeed, musically trained individuals can synchronize more accurately than novices
with both auditory [15, 16] and visual [17] stimuli. Sincemusical experience has been shown to improve the ability of sensorimotor integration, as evidenced in shorter
reaction times to auditory [18, 19], visual [20, 21], andaudiovisual combined stimuli [22] compared to novices,
the superior sensorimotor integration might be a key
contributor to high synchronization ability in musicians.
However, to our best knowledge, there are no studies thathave compared the effect of piano experience on synchronization stability using different stimulus presentation modalities.
In regards to the musical experience, pianists who are
expected to have extensive finger motor training havebeen reported to show remarkable finger tapping performance, and their piano training effects are particularly evident in the ring or little finger movements [23].
For example, although the maximum speed of two-finger
tapping was slower with ring and little fingers than withindex and middle fingers regardless of piano experience, a decline in performance from two-finger tappingwith index and middle fingers to that with ring and little fingers was smaller in pianists than novices [23]. Even
though this prior work has revealed that piano training
can improve tapping performance particularly for the
ring and little fingers, it is currently unknown whether

Page 2 of 8

the ability to synchronize to external sensory stimuli withthe ring finger is at or similar to the level of the index finger in piano players. In this study, we focused on the ring
finger because movement restrictions are greater in thering than little finger given that the ring finger, unlike thelittle finger, lacks the muscle responsible solely for extension and thus is strongly influenced by the intertendinous
connections between the tendons of the middle and little
fingers [24].
Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to compare the effect of piano experience on synchronization
stability between the index and ring fingers using different stimulus presentation modalities. To this end, piano
players and novices tapped with their index or ring finger
synchronously to auditory, visual, and audiovisual combined stimuli. In this study, we employed an electronic
metronome (with moving visual stimuli) commonly usedby musicians during practice as it could emphasize theeffect of piano experience. We hypothesized that synchronization stability would be higher in piano players
than novices particularly for ring finger tapping in all but
especially in the audiovisual combined stimulus condition, and that synchronization stability would be higher
for audiovisual combined stimuli than sole visual or auditory stimuli during both index and ring finger tappings inpiano players. In terms of the perspective of physiological anthropology, elucidating the development of fine finger motor skills through piano practice could clarify how
individuals adapt to musical cultures and provide essential data that advance research of human physiological
function.

Materials and methods
Participants

Thirteen amateur piano players (4 males and 9 females,mean age ± SD = 22.8 ± 2.5) and thirteen novices (8 males
and 5 females, mean age ± SD = 23.4 ± 3.5) participated inthis study. The mean years of experience of piano players were 10.3 ± 4.3 years (range: 6–20 years). Novices
have never received piano training. All the participants
had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and were allright handed as confirmed by Edinburgh Handedness
Inventory (all ≧ 80) [25]. Written informed consent was
obtained from each participant prior to the start of theexperiment. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Hiroshima University (E-2549) and conductedin accordance with the principles of the Declaration of
Helsinki.
Design and procedure

The participants sat on a chair with their forearms pronated and resting on the armrests and faced to an electronic metronome (TM-50, KOLG, Japan) which was set

Ito et al. Journal of Physiological Anthropology(2023) 42:10

30 cm in front of them at the height of the eye. The rightforearm and wrist were fixed to the armrest. They performed an externally paced tapping task with their rightindex or ring finger by lightly hitting a force transducer(Tech Gihan, Kyoto, Japan) on a table that was set in frontof the right armrest. The force transducer was placed
just under the finger used for tapping. The force signal was low-pass filtered at 5 Hz. Signals from the force
transducer and the metronome were digitized using ananalog-to-digital converter (PowerLab, ADInstruments,
Australia), sampled at 2 kHz, and stored on a personal
computer for off-line analysis (LabChart 8.1.13, ADInstruments, Australia).
There were three conditions as follows: auditory, visual,and audiovisual combined conditions where the auditory
and visual stimuli were presented simultaneously. In theauditory condition, participants were asked to synchronize their taps with the tone (1 kHz) presented by theelectronic metronome through a headphone (G PRO X,
Logicool, Japan). In the visual condition, they looked at ascreen of the electronic metronome and were instructed
to tap when a line which moving like a pendulum at aconstant speed reached one of the edges of the screen. In
the audiovisual combined condition, both the auditory
and visual stimuli were presented simultaneously. Basedon previous studies [4, 9, 26, 27], all the stimuli were presented at 1 Hz, and the participants performed 30 taps ineach condition. They stayed still without tapping for the
first 5 stimuli and started tapping from 6th stimulus. In
the visual and audiovisual combined conditions, the participants were instructed to visually focus on the pendulum motion on the liquid crystal screen of the electronic
metronome, and in the auditory condition, they were
instructed to focus on the screen. Additionally, they were
instructed to keep their wrist, palm, and the non-tapping
fingers in contact with the armrest/tabletop and to maintain a constant tapping force during the task. No instructions were given regarding the tapping height. Before theexperiment, the participants practiced the tapping task
once for the audiovisual condition using each finger. Eachparticipant completed six tapping tasks (3 conditions × 2
fingers). The order of the conditions was pseudo randomized among the participants.
Data analysis

The data were analyzed with MATLAB R2021a (MathWorks, USA). The force signal was low-pass filtered atPage 3 of 8

10 Hz (fourth-order Butterworth filter) to remove noises
and down-sampled to 1 kHz. Asynchrony time was calculated as a difference between tap onset and metronome
onset. The tap onset was defined as the first time point at
which the force signal reached above mean + 5 standard
deviation (SD) of the baseline (− 400 to − 200 ms before
each stimulus onset). We calculated SD of asynchrony
time to evaluate synchronization stability.
Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Statistics
software version 21 (SPSS, IBM Corp., USA). A threeway repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was used to examine the effects of musical experience,
presentation modality, and finger on the asynchrony
time and synchronization stability. Post hoc test was conducted with Bonferroni adjustment. In addition, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated between theyears of musical experience and synchronization stability
in each condition for piano players. Significant level was
set at p < 0.05.

Results
For the mean asynchrony time, a three-way repeatedmeasures ANOVA showed no significant main effect orinteraction.
For the SDs of asynchrony time, a three-way repeatedmeasures ANOVA revealed a main effect of Modality(F(2,50) = 12.209, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.337), an interaction of Modality and Finger (F(2,50) = 3.480, p = 0.039, partial η2 = 0.127), and an interaction of Group, Modality,
and Finger (F(2,50) = 3.972, p = 0.025, partial η2 = 0.142).
Subsequent two-way ANOVA with factors Modality
and Finger for the piano players revealed a main effectof Modality (F(2,50) = 6.284, p = 0.006, partial η2 = 0.344)
and an interaction of Modality and Finger (F(2,50) = 6.672,
p = 0.005, partial η2 = 0.357) (Fig. 1a). Post hoc analysis revealed that the SD of asynchrony time with index
finger was smaller in the combined condition as compared to the auditory (p = 0.01) and visual (p < 0.001)
conditions. Also, the SD of asynchrony time with ring
finger was smaller in the auditory than visual condition(p = 0.029). Furthermore, in the combined condition, theSD of asynchrony time was smaller for index than ring
finger (p = 0.017). On the other hand, subsequent twoway ANOVA with factors Modality and Finger for novices revealed a main effect of Modality (F(2,50) = 5.983,(See figure on next page.)
Fig. 1 The SD of asynchrony time. a SD of asynchrony time in piano players: synchronization stability for the index finger was higher for audiovisual
combined stimuli than sole visual or auditory stimuli. b SD of asynchrony time in novices: synchronization stability was higher for audiovisual
combined stimuli than sole visual stimuli. c SD of asynchrony time in each stimulus modality: in the visual condition, synchronization stability forthe ring finger was higher in piano players than novices, and also, the synchronization stability was lower during ring than index finger tapping only
in novices. Error bars present standard error of the mean. The asterisks indicate significant post hoc differences

Ito et al. Journal of Physiological Anthropology

Fig. 1 (See legend on previous page.)(2023) 42:10

Page 4 of 8

Ito et al. Journal of Physiological Anthropology(2023) 42:10

p = 0.008, partial η2 = 0.333) (Fig. 1b). Post hoc analysis
revealed that the SD of asynchrony time was smaller inthe combined than visual condition (p = 0.003). In addition, we conducted subsequent two-way ANOVA withfactors Group and Finger for the auditory, visual, andcombined conditions (Fig. 1c). In the visual condition,
there was a significant interaction of Group and Finger (F(2,50) = 9.467, p = 0.005, partial η2 = 0.283). Post hoc
analysis revealed that the SD of asynchrony time waslarger with ring than index finger in novices (p = 0.003),
and that the SD of asynchrony time with ring finger waslarger in novices than piano players (p = 0.016). In theauditory or combined condition, there was no significant
main effect or interaction of Group and Finger. Finally,
we conducted subsequent two-way ANOVA with factors Group and Modality for the index and ring fingers.
For the index finger, there was a significant main effectof Modality (F(2,50) = 8.181, p = 0.001, partial η2 = 0.254),
and post hoc analysis showed that the SD of asynchrony
time was smaller in the combined than visual condition(p < 0.001). For the ring finger, there was a significant
main effect of Modality (F(2,50) = 7.824, p = 0.001, partialη2 = 0.246), and post hoc analysis showed that the SD of
asynchrony time was smaller in the auditory and combined conditions as compared to the visual condition(auditory: p = 0.001, combined: p = 0.023).
Regarding the correlation between the years of musicalexperience and the SD of asynchrony time, no significant
results were obtained in all the conditions.

Discussion
In this study, we compared the effect of piano experienceon synchronization stability between the index and ring
fingers using different stimulus presentation modalities.
As a result, synchronization stability during ring finger
tapping was greater in piano players than novices in thevisual condition. Moreover, we found that synchronization stability for visual stimuli was lower during ring
finger tapping as compared to index finger tapping in
novices; however, this decline in synchronization stability for visual stimuli during ring finger tapping was notapparent in piano players. In addition, synchronization
stability during index finger tapping was greater for audiovisual combined stimuli as compared to sole visual andauditory stimuli in piano players. On the other hand, in
novices, synchronization stability was greater for combined stimuli than only visual stimuli.
We found the effect of piano experience on synchronization stability in the visual condition with the ring finger. This finding indicates that synchronization stability
for moving visual stimuli is affected by musical experience, particularly when using the finger with less dexterity. When both auditory and visual stimuli are presented

Page 5 of 8with a phase shift, tapping rhythm is entrained to auditory stimuli [6]. This auditory dominance in synchronization tasks is probably due to high temporal resolution
in auditory processing [5] and strong functional coupling between auditory and motor cortices [28]. On theother hand, the other studies have reported that synchronization to visual moving stimuli can be as accurate
as auditory stimuli [7–10]. It has been demonstrated
that synchronization stability to moving visual stimuli
improves remarkably after the age of 10 years [29]. In
addition, deaf individuals have been found to synchronize
to visual stimuli more accurately than normal-hearing
individuals [30]. These results suggest that synchronization stability for moving visual stimuli would improvethrough individual experience. Therefore, our finding ofhigh synchronization stability for moving visual stimuli in piano players can be ascribed to rich experienceof observing movements of a metronome. However, it
should be noted that synchronization stability was higher
for auditory and combined stimuli than visual stimuli
regardless of tapping fingers in piano players. Because
metronome rhythm is usually presented both auditorily
and visually, synchronizing only to visual stimuli from themetronome might have been difficult for piano players.
Besides the stimulus presentation modality, the effectof piano experience on synchronization stability was pronounced in the ring finger. The independent movement ofring finger is limited as compared to the other fingers [31,32], and this limitation is caused by differences in anatomical structure and neuromuscular control between
fingers [24]. The movement of ring finger is thought tobe affected by the intertendinous connections between
the tendons of extensor digitorum muscles because there
are no muscles that solely work for extension of the ring
finger. On the other hand, pianists could move their ring
finger faster and more accurately than novices [23], andthis enhanced performance would be ascribed to plastic changes of neuromuscular control by piano practice[33]. Similarly, in string players who often use their little finger during the playing, the cortical representationof little finger responded more greatly to tactile input ascompared to novices. Moreover, the distance between
cortical representation of little finger and that of thumb
was greater in string players as compared to novices [34].
These findings suggest that cortical activity could change
after the use of specific fingers. Therefore, in piano players of the current study, neuromuscular control of ring
finger and associated cortical activity may have changed
after piano practice, which possibly resulted in a stable
movement of ring finger.
We found that synchronization stability was improvedby the use of audiovisual combined stimuli especially inpiano players, particularly when using the index finger.

Ito et al. Journal of Physiological Anthropology(2023) 42:10

In externally paced tapping, timing estimation basedon external rhythms and sensorimotor integration isimportant. Previous studies have demonstrated that themeasurement of time period between two stimuli wasmore accurate for audiovisual combined stimuli thansole auditory or visual stimuli [35], and that reaction
times to audiovisual stimuli were faster than sole auditory or visual stimuli [22]. These findings indicate thattime estimation and reactions to external stimuli canbe enhanced by presentation of multisensory information. Moreover, responses of superior colliculus neurons,
which play an important role in responding to multisensory information [36], have been found to be immature innewborn as compared to adult monkeys [37], suggestingthat multisensory integration develops after rich experience with multisensory signals. Indeed, previous studies
have shown that musical training enhances information
processing and motor control associated with integration of multisensory information. For example, pianotraining induces plastic reorganizational changes in theauditory cortex, surpassing the effect of auditory training alone [38]. Also, a functional magnetic resonanceimaging study has demonstrated that broader brain areas
were recruited when listening and seeing a musical performance in piano players than novices, and the recruitment was observed especially in brain regions known tobe related to integration of sensory and motor information [39]. Furthermore, the plastic brain changes related
to the function of multisensory integration in piano
players contribute to the neural basis of their advanced
finger motor control [23, 40–43]. As precisely synchronizing tapping with both visual and auditory stimuli
requires these functions, the high tapping synchronization stability for audiovisual stimuli in piano players, as
demonstrated in our study, is believed to be due to thedevelopment of sensorimotor processing and fine motor
control through piano experience. The reason why novices presented higher synchronization stability for audiovisual combined stimuli than only visual stimuli might bebecause of the auditory dominance mentioned above but
needs to be studied further in future studies.
There are several limitations in this study. First, we
recruited participants based only on their piano experience duration, and their performance frequency was different. Previous studies reported correlations between
early onset of piano playing and high synchronization
stability [44] and between total time of musical practiceand surround inhibition of fingers [45]. Therefore, futurestudies on synchronization stability should be conductedwith consideration of musical experience from various perspectives. Second, superiority of tapping performance of pianists might have been more apparent withdifferent experimental settings. It has been reported that

Page 6 of 8

cortical response to somatosensory stimulation to theleft little finger was larger for string players than controls[34]. Considering the impact that many piano players
have experience in playing string instruments and canuse their nondominant hand (mostly left hand) as proficiently as their dominant hand (mostly right hand) during piano performance, the use of left little finger (insteadof the right ring finger) may have emphasized the superiority of tapping performance of piano players over novices. Furthermore, we adopted the stimulus presentation
frequency of 1 Hz in this study. Given that pianists canplay much faster than this frequency, the higher presentation frequency (and thus tapping frequency) might
have amplified the differences in synchronization stability between piano players and novices. Third, we did notevaluate any neurophysiological data. Additional studies
are warranted to reveal the neurophysiological difference between piano players and novices during externallypaced tapping. Finally, this study focused on piano experience and finger motor control; therefore, it is uncertain
whether our findings are limited to these contexts (i.e.,
instruments and body parts). Nonetheless, future comprehensive investigations with consideration with thesefactors will lead to progress in the field of physiologicalanthropology.

Conclusion
The present study demonstrated that synchronization
stability during ring finger tapping was higher in piano
players than novices for visual moving stimuli. Also,
synchronization stability was higher when tapping withaudiovisual combined stimuli as compared to sole visualand auditory stimuli, especially in piano players. Thesefindings suggest that improvements of both sensorimotor processing and finger motor control by piano practicewould contribute to superior synchronization stability.
Abbreviation
ANOVA	Analysis of varianceAcknowledgements
We would like to thank study participants who devoted their time and efforts.
Authors’ contributions
KI, conceptualization, methodology, software programming, validation, formal
analysis, investigation, data curation, writing — original draft, visualization,and project administration. TW, conceptualization, methodology, software
programming, formal analysis, resources, writing — review and editing, supervision, and funding acquisition. TM, methodology, investigation, data curation,and funding acquisition. KY, methodology, investigation, and data curation.
HI, methodology and data curation. TH, methodology and data curation. HK,
conceptualization, methodology, resources, writing — review and editing,supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition.
Funding
This research was partially supported by grants from the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science (22H03454 and 22K17777).

Ito et al. Journal of Physiological Anthropology(2023) 42:10

Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available fromthe corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before beginning the experiment, which was conducted according to principles of the
Declaration of Helsinki. The experimental protocol was also approved by the
Ethics Committee for Epidemiology of Hiroshima University (E-2549).
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author details
1
Department of Sensorimotor Neuroscience, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, 1‑2‑3 Kasumi, Minami‑Ku,
Hiroshima 734‑8553, Japan. 2 Faculty of Health Sciences, Aomori University
of Health and Welfare, 58‑1 Mase, Hamadate, Aomori 030‑8505, Japan. 3 Facultyof Health Sciences, Tokyo Kasei University, 2‑15‑1 Inariyama, Sayama, Saitama
350‑1394, Japan.
Received: 1 May 2023 Accepted: 9 June 2023

References
1. Kolers P, Brewster J. Rhythms and responses. JEPHPP. 1985;11(2):150–67.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0096-​1523.​11.2.​150.
2. Repp B, Penel A. Auditory dominance in temporal processing: newevidence from synchronization with simultaneous visual and auditory
sequences. JEHPP. 2002;28(5):1085–99. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0096-​
1523.​28.5.​1085|10.​1037//​0096-​1523.​28.5.​1085.
3. Chen YQ, Repp BH, Patel AD. Spectral decomposition of variability insynchronization and continuation tapping: comparisons between
auditory and visual pacing and feedback conditions. Hum Mov Sci.
2002;21(4):515–32. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​s0167-​9457(02)​00138-0.
4. Kato M, Konishi Y. Auditory dominance in the error correction process: asynchronized tapping study. Brain Res. 2006;1084:115–22. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​brain​res.​2006.​02.​019.
5. Fujisaki W, Nishida S. Temporal frequency characteristics of synchronyasynchrony discrimination of audio-visual signals. Exp Brain Res.
2005;166(3–4):455–64. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00221-​005-​2385-8.
6. Repp BH, Penel A. Rhythmic movement is attracted more strongly toauditory than to visual rhythms. Psychol Res. 2004;68(4):252–70. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00426-​003-​0143-8.
7. Hove MJ, Spivey MJ, Krumhansl CL. Compatibility of motion facilitates
visuomotor synchronization. JEHPP. 2010;36(6):1525–34. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1037/​a0019​059.
8. Ruspantini I, D’Ausilio A, Maki H, Ilmoniemi R. Some considerations
about the biological appearance of pacing stimuli in visuomotor fingertapping tasks. Cogn Process. 2011;12(2):215–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10339-​011-​0391-2.
9. Gan LY, Huang YY, Zhou L, Qian C, Wu X. Synchronization to a bouncingball with a realistic motion trajectory. Sci Rep. 2015;5:11974. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1038/​srep1​1974.
10. Huang Y, Gu L, Yang J, Zhong S, Wu X. Relative contributions of the speed
characteristic and other possible ecological factors in synchronization
to a visual beat consisting of periodically moving stimuli. Front Psychol.
2018;9:1226. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2018.​01226.
11. Gu L, Huang Y, Wu X. Advantage of audition over vision in a perceptual timing task but not in a sensorimotor timing task. Psychol Res.
2020;84(7):2046–56. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00426-​019-​01204-3.

Page 7 of 8

12. Elliott MT, Wing AM, Welchman AE. Multisensory cues improve sensorimotor synchronisation. Eur J Neurosci. 2010;31(10):1828–35. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1111/j.​1460-​9568.​2010.​07205.x.
13. Armstrong A, Issartel J. Sensorimotor synchronization with audiovisual stimuli: limited multisensory integration. Exp Brain Res.
2014;232(11):3453–63. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00221-​014-​4031-9.
14. Johnson V, Hsu W, Ostrand A, Gazzaley A, Zanto T. Multimodal sensory
integration: diminishing returns in rhythmic synchronization. JEHPP.
2020;46(10):1077–87. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​xhp00​00833.
15. Krause V, Pollok B, Schnitzler A. Perception in action: the impact of
sensory information on sensorimotor synchronization in musicians andnon-musicians. Acta Physiol (Oxf ). 2010;133(1):28–37. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​actpsy.​2009.​08.​003.
16. Thompson EC, White-Schwoch T, Tierney A, Kraus N. Beat synchronization
across the lifespan: intersection of development and musical experience.
Plos One. 2015;10(6):e0128839. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​
01288​39.
17. Ono K, Nakamura A, Maess B. Keeping an eye on the conductor: neuralcorrelates of visuo-motor synchronization and musical experience. Front
Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:154. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fnhum.​2015.​00154.
18. Strait D, Kraus N, Parbery-Clark A, Ashley R. Musical experience shapes
top-down auditory mechanisms: evidence from masking and auditory
attention performance. Hear Res. 2010;261(1–2):22–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​heares.​2009.​12.​021.
19. Landry S, Champoux F. Musicians react faster and are better multisensory integrators. Brain Cogn. 2017;111:156–62. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​bandc.​2016.​12.​001.
20. Brochard R, Dufour A, Despres O. Effect of musical expertise on visuospatial abilities: evidence from reaction times and mental imagery. Brain
Cogn. 2004;54(2):103–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0278-​2626(03)​00264-1.
21. Rodrigues A, Loureiro M, Caramelli P. Long-term musical training
may improve different forms of visual attention ability. Brain Cogn.
2013;82(3):229–35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​bandc.​2013.​04.​009.
22. Bidelman G. Musicians have enhanced audiovisual multisensory binding:experience-dependent effects in the double-flash illusion. Exp Brain Res.
2016;234(10):3037–47. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00221-​016-​4705-6.
23. Aoki T, Furuya S, Kinoshita H. Finger-tapping ability in male and female
pianists and nonmusician controls. Mot Control. 2005;9(1):23–39. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1123/​mcj.9.​1.​23.
24. Lang C, Schieber M. Human finger independence: limitations due topassive mechanical coupling versus active neuromuscular control. J
Neurophysiol. 2004;92(5):2802–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1152/​jn.​00480.​2004.
25. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh
inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971;9(1):97–113. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
0028-​3932(71)​90067-4.
26. Ono K, Mikami Y, Fukuyama H, Mima T. Motion-induced disturbance ofauditory-motor synchronization and its modulation by transcranial direct
current stimulation. Eur J Neurosci. 2016;43(4):509–15. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ejn.​13135.
27. Jäncke L, Specht K, Mirzazade S, Peters M. The effect of finger-movement
speed of the dominant and the subdominant hand on cerebellar activation: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neuroimage.
1999;9(5):497–507. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1006/​nimg.​1998.​0426.
28. Zatorre R, Chen J, Penhune V. When the brain plays music: auditory-motor
interactions in music perception and production. Nat Rev Neurosci.
2007;8(7):547–58. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​nrn21​52.
29. Mu Y, Huang Y, Ji C, Gu L, Wu X. Auditory over visual advantage ofsensorimotor synchronization in 6-to 7-year-old children but not in 12-to
15-year-old children and adults. JEPHPP. 2018;44(5):818–26. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1037/​xhp00​00500.
30. Iversen J, Patel A, Nicodemus B, Emmorey K. Synchronization to auditory and visual rhythms in hearing and deaf individuals. Cognition.
2015;134:232–44. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cogni​tion.​2014.​10.​018.
31. Hager-Ross C, Schieber M. Quantifying the independence of humanfinger movements: comparisons of digits, hands, and movement
frequencies. J Neurosci. 2000;20(22):8542–50. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1523/​
JNEUR​OSCI.​20-​22-​08542.​2000.
32. Slobounov S, Johnston J, Chiang H, Ray W. The role of sub-maximal force
production in the enslaving phenomenon. Brain Res. 2002;954(2):212–9.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0006-​8993(02)​03288-2.

Ito et al. Journal of Physiological Anthropology(2023) 42:10

Page 8 of 8

33. Kimoto Y, Oku T, Furuya S. Neuromuscular and biomechanical functions
subserving finger dexterity in musicians. Scie Rep. 2019;9:12224. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41598-​019-​48718-9.
34. Elbert T, Pantev C, Wienbruch C, Rockstroh B, Taub E. Increased corticalrepresentation of the fingers of the left hand in string players. Science.
1995;270(5234):305–7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​270.​5234.​305.
35. Murai Y, Yotsumoto Y. Optimal multisensory integration leads to optimal time estimation. Sci Rep. 2018;8:13068. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​
s41598-​018-​31468-5.
36. Stein B, Stanford T. Multisensory integration: current issues from theperspective of the single neuron. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9(4):255–66.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​nrn23​31.
37. Wallace M, Stein B. Sensory and multisensory responses in the newbornmonkey superior colliculus. J Neurosci. 2001;21(22):8886–94. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1523/​JNEUR​OSCI.​21-​22-​08886.​2001.
38. Lappe C, Herholz SC, Trainor LJ, Pantev C. Cortical plasticity inducedby short-term unimodal and multimodal musical training. J Neurosci.
2008;28(39):9632–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1523/​JNEUR​OSCI.​2254-​08.​2008.
39. Srinivasan N, Bishop J, Yekovich R, Rosenfield DB, Helekar SA. Differential
activation and functional plasticity of multimodal areas associated withacquired musical skill. Neuroscience. 2020;446:294–303. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​neuro​scien​ce.​2020.​08.​013.
40. Hirano M, Kimoto Y, Furuya S. Specialized somatosensory-motor integration functions in musicians. Cereb Cortex. 2020;30(3):1148–58. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​cercor/​bhz154.
41. Hirano M, Furuya S. Multisensory interactions on auditory and somatosensory information in expert pianists. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):12503.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41598-​022-​16618-0.
42. Watson AH. What can studying musicians tell us about motor control of
the hand? J Anat. 2006;208(4):527–42. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1469-​
7580.​2006.​00545.x.
43. Paraskevopoulos E, Kuchenbuch A, Herholz SC, Pantev C. Musicalexpertise induces audiovisual integration of abstract congruency rules.
J Neurosci. 2012;32(50):18196–203. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1523/​JNEUR​OSCI.​
1947-​12.​2012.
44. Bailey J, Zatorre R, Penhune V. Early musical training is linked to gray matter structure in the ventral premotor cortex and auditory-motor rhythm
synchronization performance. J Cogn Neurosci. 2014;26(4):755–67.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1162/​jocn_a_​00527.
45. Shin H, Kang S, Hallett M, Sohn Y. Reduced surround inhibition inmusicians. Exp Brain Res. 2012;219(3):403–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00221-​012-​3102-z.

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Ready to submit your research ? Choose BMC and benefit from:• fast, convenient online submission• thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field• rapid publication on acceptance• support for research data, including large and complex data types• gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations• maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year
At BMC, research is always in progress.
Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions