Repp Bruno H, Steinman Susan R
Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT 06511-6624, USA.
J Mot Behav. 2010 Mar-Apr;42(2):111-26. doi: 10.1080/00222890903566418.
It has been claimed that rhythmic tapping and circle drawing represent fundamentally different timing processes (event-based and emergent, respectively) and also that circle drawing is difficult to synchronize with a metronome and exhibits little phase correction. In the present study, musically trained participants tapped with their left hands, drew circles with their right (dominant) hands, and also performed both tasks simultaneously. In Experiment 1, they synchronized with a metronome and then continued on their own, whereas in Experiment 2, they synchronized with a metronome containing phase perturbations. Circle drawing generally exhibited reliable synchronization, although with greater variability than tapping, and also showed a clear phase-correction response that evolved gradually during the cycle immediately following a perturbation. When carried out simultaneously in synchrony, with or without a metronome, the two tasks affected each other in some ways but retained their distinctive timing characteristics. This shows that event-based and emergent timing can coexist in a dual-task situation. Furthermore, the authors argue that the two timing modes usually coexist in each individual task, although one mode is often dominant.
有人声称，有节奏的敲击和画圈代表了根本不同的计时过程（分别是基于事件的和涌现的），而且画圈很难与节拍器同步，并且几乎没有相位校正。在本研究中，接受过音乐训练的参与者用左手敲击，用右手（优势手）画圈，并且同时执行这两项任务。在实验1中，他们先与节拍器同步，然后自行继续，而在实验2中，他们与包含相位扰动的节拍器同步。画圈通常表现出可靠的同步性，尽管比敲击的变异性更大，并且在扰动后的紧接着的周期中也显示出逐渐演变的明显的相位校正反应。当同时同步执行时，无论有无节拍器，这两项任务在某些方面会相互影响，但仍保留其独特的计时特征。这表明基于事件的计时和涌现的计时可以在双重任务情况下共存。此外，作者认为这两种计时模式通常在每个单独的任务中都共存，尽管一种模式通常占主导地位。
