John McBride

There is one approach, originally from Aures (1985), and developed by others after. See Peter Harrison's review or my early-version draft of a review on roughness for more details. They model roughness as a function of modulation depth and rate, and get this from the waveform envelope.

Academia.edu - Find Research Papers, Topics, Researchers Academia.edu is the platform to share, find, and explore 50 Million research papers. Join us to accelerate your research needs & academic interests.

FYI, Academia.edu has changed its terms of service to give an irrevocable worldwide license for anything uploaded to its site to be used for generative AI. I do not consent to this and have pulled all my papers.

The pi-shifting condition is actually quite cool. It would be interesting to see it applied to other animals, to see if they mirror human behaviour, which the macaques did not.

Beat synchrony is defined as a process involving prediction, and is different from simply reacting to a cue. If we can't independently know the monkeys' subjective beat phase, how can we tell apart prediction from reaction? That's a challenge. With this experiment design, it is impossible.

4/4

The authors tried changing the position in the song where participants started tapping (pi-shifting). Humans still tapped on the downbeat. Monkeys found completely new phases to tap to.

3/4

Monkeys don't tap on the same beat phase (downbeat) as humans and other animals that have been shown to synchronize to a beat. The authors claimed that they are simply tapping to some "subjective beat [phase]". The two monkeys tap to different phases. Are they identifying a phase and synchronizing?

Monkeys have rhythm? Not so fast.

When a recent Science paper said "monkeys have rhythm", a few of us knew something wasn't right.

It boils down to three points (see preprint for more detail).

1/4

I've been puzzled by the controversy around EES for a while. Pop genetics doesnt incorporate the ideas that EES highlights in models (difficult to do well), but nobody disputes that they are important. EES calls for this. I've suspected that the debates are a sort of academic waste product

Whether you call it directional or not depends on your definition. One I think of is a causal graph. Once you have an arrow from organism to environment (niche construction) that loops back to the organisms own evolution, it can be called self-directed evolution. Other definitions may differ

I think these are largely overlapping ideas. (Sorry for the source but its quick and its late here...) heres a quick clip from wikipedia. Seems like the ideas are only controversial when labelled EES (and perhaps because of how EES is packaged)

Okay, fits with what I've heard before. What do you think of the haenyeo example? Seems to be in between, no? I.e. people who learn to dive well for a food source end up with good genes for diving.

It sounds mad when you think of it in terms of intelligent design, of course. But you don't need that kind of intention to co-direct evolution. Just a feedback loop between organism, environment, and selection.

A small polymerase ribozyme that can synthesize itself and its complementary strand The emergence of a chemical system capable of self-replication and evolution is a critical event in the origin of life. RNA polymerase ribozymes can replicate RNA, but their large size and structural ...

How could a simple self-replicating system emerge at the origins of life? RNA polymerase ribozymes can replicate RNA, but existing ones are so large that their self-replication seems impossible. Could they be smaller?

Excited to share our latest work in @science.org on a new small polymerase.
1/n

Nothing controversial there. It's basically a consequence of niche construction. Organisms alter the genotype-phenotype-fitness landscape by changing their environment. If Korean women culturally learn and invent methods for diving for clams, they direct their own evolution (see Haenyeo)

Gambling with research quality How you get 244 different ways to measure performance on the same test of decision making. And what it means for the reliability of behavioural science

Read my latest post for reflections on reproducibility, research quality and a summary of a great new study which shows how NOT to do it

https://open.substack.com/pub/tomstafford/p/gambling-with-research-quality

I've almost doubled the number of entries in the music notation timeline this year alone--and it's hard to believe that in a year this resource will have been online for a decade!

silpayamanant.wordpress.com/timeline-of-...

Information and motor constraints shape melodic diversity across cultures The number of possible melodies is unfathomably large, yet despite this virtually unlimited potential for melodic variation, melodies from different societies can be surprisingly similar. The motor co...

I've been thinking about notation systems for a while, after I analysed the information efficiency of different pitch and rhythm representations. Unfortunately a lot of that work is buried in the supplementary section of this paper, so probs most don't see it. Tho i might build on it some day

GitHub - jomimc/DaMuSc: Cross-cultural database of musical scales Cross-cultural database of musical scales. Contribute to jomimc/DaMuSc development by creating an account on GitHub.

Cool project! I did something similar for musical scales a few years ago. Any plans for systematizing it or analysing it? I'd mostly be interested in cross-cultural notation systems, and mainly ones where there is evidence that people actually use them (rather than only having a patent)

‘If musicality did not arise from language, where did it come from?’ New preprint, Curr. Biol. In press. : doi.org/10.31234/osf...

It would be interesting to use some interactive method for exploring the space of possible chord sequences. Like what was done with Darwin Tunes, or one of the iterated learning experiments that have come out in the past few years.

YouTube video by orangejamtw Messiaen - L'Ascension, for solo organ

Like, I wouldn't say that this conclusively debunks anything. It might be the case that you need to search hard to find a good sequence of chords that produces the 'contrast effect'. I.e., perhaps there's a reason only some people are considered excellent composers?
Hats off to Messaien...

Cool stuff. I like the choice of stimuli. However, the list of possible stimuli (sequences of chords) is vast. I wonder if you could try to design entirely unfamiliar stimuli, and manage to find a sequence with some very rough chords that sounds great due to the contrast effect.

Does musical tension make the final resolution sweeter? 🎵 New research says perhaps no! We found that high dissonance in the penultimate chord actually makes the final tonic sound less pleasant, debunking the long-held "contrast effect" theory. #musicscience #musicresearch
doi.org/10.1177/0305...

Hundreds of societies have been in crises like ours. An expert explains how they got out. An analysis of historical crises over the past 2,000 years offers lessons for avoiding the end times.

Worth a read of this piece by Peter Turchin in these turbulent times:
www.vox.com/the-highligh...

Peer Review is broken because a generation of Editors were trained that peer review is sacrosanct. Thus we have Editors who are clerks, sending and re-sending manuscripts to reviewers until they are happy. That's not the job. Be an Editor, not a clerk. Use your skill and judgement. Make decisions.

It's not that bad because it's so obviously wrong, and any serious scientist would be able to notice this... But more importantly, what is the worst thing scientists do...?

I would sooner substitute the lillet for vermouth rather than Cocchi or a gentian. Amaro could maybe work as the strong aromatic, although I'm used to pairing those with some sort of whiskey/bourbon, so not sure how well it'll work with gin (amaro might be too overpowering, so maybe just use less)

Context. I have a two-stage classification task. First stage assigns 99% of values as negative. Second stage has a threshold that I can use for a ROC curve (wrong approach!). LLM's maths didn't always work out, but it seems to have studied enough text to know about the problem I've encountered...

Thanks ChatGPT, I feel better now...

I think you are postulating this, right? Can you describe from the point of view of an observer, what is the difference between general surprise and linguistic oddness?