Distinct roles of expertise and perceptual awareness in sensorimotor adaptation to abrupt tempo changes

Distinct roles of expertise and perceptual awareness in sensorimotor adaptation to abrupt tempo changes | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Distinct roles of expertise and perceptual awareness in sensorimotor adaptation to abrupt tempo changes Soo Mi Nam, Jaeuk Jeong This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7194374/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study examined how the direction and magnitude of abrupt tempo changes, as well as dance expertise and perceptual awareness, affect sensorimotor adaptation during rhythmic synchronisation. Thirty-two adults (16 experts and 16 novices) performed synchronisation finger tapping tasks involving both small (± 10 ms; acceleration and deceleration) and large (± 50, ± 100, and ± 150 ms) step changes in metronome tempo, with a baseline inter-tap interval of 500 ms. Perceptual detection of each tempo change was recorded. Adaptation was assessed using inter-tap interval (ITI), relative asynchrony (RA), and phase correction response (PCR) at specific positions following each perturbation. Separate analyses were conducted for tempo acceleration and deceleration conditions. For small accelerations, participants who detected the tempo change adjusted their ITIs closer to the target value, indicating that perceptual awareness supported more effective adaptation. In contrast, for small decelerations, the closest alignment with the target interval was observed in the absence of conscious detection, highlighting the benefit of implicit correction. With larger tempo changes, expertise-related advantages were apparent only for the − 100 ms condition, and were minimal or absent for the − 150 ms and all deceleration conditions. Across all conditions, no significant group differences were found in immediate phase resetting, suggesting that rapid phase correction relies on general sensorimotor mechanisms. sensorimotor adaptation rhythmic synchronisation tempo change expertise perceptual awareness Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 1. Introduction Precise temporal coordination is fundamental to a wide range of human behaviours, from everyday actions such as walking and speaking to highly specialised activities such as playing music or performing rhythmic movement sequences. These behaviours often require individuals to align their motor output with external temporal cues, a process known as sensorimotor synchronisation (SMS). SMS emerges from the continuous interplay between perception and action, enabling rhythmic behaviour to be flexibly adapted to changes in external timing signals (Grahn, 2012 ). Among experimental paradigms, the finger tapping task has been widely used to provide a controlled setting for investigating SMS, as it allows for detailed analysis of how rhythmic motor output is aligned with external cues. Recent work has further demonstrated that beat perception actively recruits motor-related neural circuits, supporting proactive prediction and anticipatory sensorimotor processes (Cannon & Patel, 2021 ; Rimmele et al., 2018 ). In particular, tasks involving repeated movement in time with an external rhythm demand not only accurate synchronisation but also flexible adaptation when the temporal structure changes. Given the inherent variability in motor timing, error correction mechanisms are essential for maintaining phase constancy between stimulus and response. Seminal models of sensorimotor adaptation, such as the dual-process framework proposed by Mates ( 1994 ) and further elaborated by Repp & Keller ( 2004 ), distinguish two distinct error correction mechanisms that support adaptation to temporal perturbations. Phase correction refers to the rapid adjustment of individual tap timing to minimise the observed asynchrony between stimulus and response, without modifying the internal timekeeper period. In contrast, period correction is characterised by a gradual adjustment of the internal timekeeper’s period in response to discrepancies between the internal tempo and the preceding inter-stimulus interval (ISI). These two mechanisms can operate simultaneously following an abrupt tempo change, allowing both immediate and sustained adaptation. Neurophysiological studies have identified dissociable neural correlates for phase and period correction, with error-related brain activity supporting these distinct adjustment processes (Grahn, 2012 ; Praamstra et al., 2003 ). Importantly, the relative efficiency and expression of these mechanisms have been found to vary as a function of individual characteristics, particularly rhythmic expertise acquired through musical training or dance experience. This has motivated research examining group differences in SMS adaptation. Musicians have consistently been shown to synchronise their movements with greater temporal precision and to exhibit more robust phase correction responses compared to non-musicians (Loehr et al., 2011 ; Repp, 2010 ; Scheurich et al., 2020 ). This superior adaptability is attributed to extensive training in aligning motor actions with complex rhythmic patterns, which strengthens internal timekeeping and error correction processes (Scheurich et al., 2020 ). Comparable effects have been reported for individuals with dance experience, who typically undergo years of intensive sensorimotor practice. Dance training is associated with neuroplastic changes in the brain, and expert dancers have demonstrated superior sensorimotor integration and timing abilities (Bläsing et al., 2012 ; Miura et al., 2016 ). Moreover, individuals with ballroom dance experience display enhanced SMS performance and the capacity to synchronise across a broader range of tempi, particularly when music is present (Karpati et al., 2016 ). These behavioural advantages are paralleled by overlapping neural adaptations in both musicians and dancers, especially in networks supporting auditory–motor integration and predictive timing (Blecher et al., 2016 ; Brown et al., 2006 ; Grahn & Brett, 2007 ). However, some studies have found no clear advantage for dancers in basic finger tapping tasks, suggesting that expertise effects may depend on the ecological validity of the task and are more pronounced in full-body movements. Although previous studies have highlighted the benefits of musical and dance expertise for sensorimotor synchronisation, there remain ongoing debates regarding the precise nature of adaptation mechanisms and their dependence on both motor expertise and perceptual awareness. A growing body of work now differentiates between explicit (conscious) and implicit (automatic) adaptation, revealing that awareness can modulate the relative contributions of phase and period correction (Taylor et al., 2014 ; Stephan et al., 2002 ). In particular, prior research has reported mixed findings concerning whether dance expertise confers clear advantages in simple finger tapping tasks, raising questions about the ecological validity of commonly used laboratory paradigms and the extent to which expertise effects generalise across different forms of rhythmic movement. Furthermore, the respective contributions of phase and period correction and their modulation by perceptual awareness are still actively discussed in the literature. The present study was specifically designed to resolve ongoing debates about the mechanisms underlying sensorimotor adaptation to abrupt tempo changes. By directly comparing individuals with and without movement-based rhythmic training, we employed a position-specific analytical framework (Repp, 2001 ; Repp & Keller, 2004 ) to dissociate immediate and sustained phases of adaptation. Crucially, our experimental design incorporated explicit assessment of participants’ perceptual awareness of tempo shifts, enabling us to disentangle the respective contributions of conscious detection and sensorimotor expertise to adaptive timing behaviour. By systematically manipulating both the magnitude of step changes and participants’ training background, our approach provides new insights into how sensorimotor expertise and perceptual awareness interact to shape flexible synchronisation in human movement. The aim of this study was to determine how sensorimotor expertise and perceptual awareness jointly influence adaptation to sudden changes in rhythmic structure, and whether these effects depend on the magnitude of the tempo perturbation. Based on previous literature, we expected that individuals with extensive rhythmic training would exhibit more precise adaptation, particularly under conditions of moderate tempo change, and that conscious detection of tempo shifts would further enhance adaptive performance, especially during the early phase of correction. Furthermore, we anticipated that as the size of the step change increased, the advantages of expertise and perceptual awareness would diminish, reflecting the limits of sensorimotor adaptation under substantial perturbations. 2. Methods 2.1. Participants Thirty-two healthy right-handed adults (16 dancers: 6 males, 10 females, mean age = 32.33 ± 4.01 years, mean dance experience = 26.82 ± 3.98 years; 16 non-dancers: 6 males, 10 females, mean age = 33.56 ± 4.23 years, no formal dance or music training) participated in the study. All participants reported no history of neurological, psychiatric, or sensorimotor impairments. The sample size was determined a priori using G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2007 ) for a two-way ANOVA (effect size f = 0.33, α = .05, power = .80), which indicated a required sample of 75; however, the current sample size (N = 32) was deemed acceptable based on precedents in similar SMS research (Repp, 2006; Repp & Penel, 2002 ). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the experiment, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the university (IRB No. 2104/004–027). 2.2. Apparatus and Stimulus Auditory stimuli and tapping responses were presented and recorded using a custom LabVIEW program, originally developed and validated in a prior tapping study (Nam et al., 2024 ). The program was designed to assess rhythm perception and sensorimotor synchronisation under controlled step-change conditions. Participants tapped the '5' key of a numeric keypad, using their right index finger, in synchrony with metronome tones delivered via headphones. To minimise motor variability, all other keys were removed from the keypad. The auditory stimulus consisted of isochronous metronome tones with a baseline inter-stimulus interval (ISI) of 500 ms. Each trial began with 8 to 10 repetitions of the 500 ISI, followed by 11 repetitions with an altered ISI, representing either a small or large step change. The number of initial baseline tones was randomly varied to reduce predictability of step change onset. The experiment consisted of two parts. In Experiment 1, participants performed 100 tapping trials, comprising 50 trials with a − 10 ms tempo shift and 50 trials with a + 10 ms shift relative to the 500 ms baseline. These small perturbations (± 10 ms) are hereafter denoted as Δ t , indicating subtle step changes near the perceptual threshold for tempo variation (Repp, 2011 ; Repp & Keller, 2004 ). In Experiment 2, six tempo-change conditions (± 50, ± 100, and ± 150 ms) were tested and denoted as Δ T to represent large step changes. Each Δ T condition was crossed with three baseline repetition levels (8, 9, or 10 ISIs), resulting in 18 unique trials. Each trial was presented twice in random order, yielding a total of 36 tapping trials. This limited number of repetitions was considered sufficient for robust estimation of responses to clearly perceivable step changes, while minimising participant fatigue. Similar protocols with low trial counts have been employed in previous large-step tempo studies (Repp & Keller, 2004 ). 2.3. Experimental procedure All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Prior to participation, all individuals received a verbal explanation of the study procedures and provided written informed consent. Participants were tested individually in a quiet room, seated comfortably at a desk with the right index finger positioned on the designated response key of a keypad fixed to the surface. Auditory stimuli were delivered through headphones, and participants were instructed to tap in synchrony with the metronome tones as accurately and consistently as possible. They were informed in advance that a step change might or might not occur during each trial, and if a change was perceived, they were asked to immediately adapt their tapping to the new tempo. In Experiment 1, participants completed 100 trials, consisting of 50 trials with a + Δ t tempo shift and 50 trials with a –Δ t shift. After each trial, participants provided a verbal report indicating whether they had perceived a step change, and if so, whether it was perceived as faster or slower. In Experiment 2, participants completed 36 trials, covering six Δ T conditions (± 50, ± 100, and ± 150 ms) crossed with three levels of baseline repetitions (8, 9, or 10 ISIs). Each of the resulting 18 trial types was repeated twice in random order. The entire session, including instructions and scheduled breaks, lasted approximately 45 minutes per participant. 2.4. Data analysis Data were analysed focusing on three dependent variables: inter-tap interval (ITI), relative asynchrony (RA), and phase correction response (PCR). From each trial, 16 consecutive taps were extracted: five preceding and eleven following the step change. To capture the temporal dynamics of adaptation, each trial was segmented into three functionally distinct positions: the perturbation response (Δ ₁ ), early adjustment (Δ ₂–₃ ), and continuation (mean C). Δ ₁ corresponded to the tap coinciding with the onset of the step change, Δ ₂ and Δ ₃ reflected the early timing adjustment response, and the subsequent seven taps were averaged to represent the continuation phase. A schematic overview of this structure is provided in Fig. 1 . For clarity, the tap positions analysed in this study are referred to as Δ t₁ , Δ t₂–₃ , and mean C in Experiment 1 (small step change), and as Δ T₁ , Δ T₂–₃ , and mean C in Experiment 2 (large step change). ITI was computed as the duration between successive taps. For each trial, position-specific ITIs were extracted at three key phases: Δ₁, Δ ₂ - ₃ , and mean C. These values were used to assess how participants adjusted their tapping interval in response to the tempo perturbation. Asynchrony was defined as the temporal difference between each tap and its corresponding metronome tone, with negative values indicating that the tap preceded the tone. To account for individual differences in baseline timing, asynchrony values were normalised by subtracting the mean pre-change asynchrony from all subsequent values, resulting in RA (Repp, 2001 ). Specifically, for each trial, the mean asynchrony of the five taps preceding the step change was subtracted from all subsequent asynchronies. RA was analysed across the same three functional phases: Δ ₁ , mean Δ ₂ - ₃ , and mean C. PCR was computed to quantify participants’ immediate sensorimotor adjustment to a tempo perturbation. For each trial, the PCR was calculated as the difference in asynchrony between the tap immediately following the step change (Δ ₂ ) and the tap coinciding with the step change onset (Δ ₁ ). This measure reflects the rapid compensatory adjustment in timing triggered by the perceived phase shift (Repp, 2011 ). In previous work, extra taps were frequently observed, particularly in conditions involving large positive phase shifts (e.g., + 50% of the baseline IOI; Repp, 2001 ). However, extra taps are also known to occur in standard 1:1 stimulus–response mappings without tempo perturbations. In the present study, extra taps were rare and limited to five instances from a single participant. Therefore, these responses were excluded from all analyses. 2.5. Statistical analysis All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 26.0). Separate analyses were performed for Experiment 1 (small step change; Δ t ) and Experiment 2 (large step change; Δ T ), reflecting anticipated differences in perceptual and behavioural responses to subtle versus salient tempo perturbations. For both experiments, the dependent variables (ITI, RA, and PCR) were analysed at three temporal positions (Δ ₁ , Δ ₂–₃ , mean C), each reflecting a distinct phase of adaptation. For each position, two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine the effects of experimental conditions. In Experiment 1, the between-subject factors were group (expert and novice) and step change perception (perceived, not perceived). Separate ANOVAs were conducted for the − 10 ms and + 10 ms conditions to account for directional differences in adaptation to tempo acceleration and deceleration. In Experiment 2, the between-subject factors were group and step change magnitude (50, 100, and 150 ms). Analyses were conducted separately for acceleration and deceleration conditions, using the same dependent variables and temporal positions as in Experiment 1. PCR, calculated as the difference in asynchrony between Δ ₂ and Δ ₁ within each trial, was analysed independently for each condition using the same between-subject factors. A significance level of α = .05 was applied for all analyses. Where significant main effects or interactions were identified, Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc comparisons were performed. 3. Results 3.1. Experiment 1: Sensorimotor adaptation to small step changes (±Δt) In the − Δ t condition, experts detected the step change in 12 out of 50 trials (24%), while novices detected it in 10 out of 50 trials (20%). In the + Δ t condition, experts detected the change in 12 trials (24%), whereas novices detected it in 9 trials (18%). Conversely, the number of trials in which the step change was not perceived was 38 (76%) for experts and 40 (80%) for novices in the − Δ t condition, and 38 (76%) for experts and 41 (82%) for novices in the + Δt condition. 3.1.1. ITI: −Δt condition At position Δ t₁ , no significant main effects or interactions were observed At positions Δ t₂–₃ , a significant main effect of step change detection was observed, F (1, 102) = 14.317, p < .001, η² = .123. Participants who detected the step change produced ITIs ( M = 481.17 ms), deviating from the target ITI of 490 ms in the negative direction, whereas those who did not detect the change produced ITIs ( M = 498.06 ms), deviating from the target in the positive direction. Both groups failed to achieve the target ITI, but their responses diverged in opposite directions. At mean C, a significant main effect of detection was again observed, F (1, 102) = 4.207, p = .043, η² = .040. Participants who detected the step change produced ITIs ( M = 489.48 ms) that were closer to the target ITI of 490 ms, whereas the not detected group produced ITIs that deviated further from the target ( M = 495.34 ms). Thus, although both groups did not fully achieve the target, the detected group maintained ITIs more closely aligned with the required interval during the period correction phase. No significant main effect of group or interaction was found. 3.1.2. ITI: +Δt condition At Δ t₁ , a significant interaction between group and step change detection was found, F (1, 102) = 8.428, p = .005, η² = .076. In the detected condition, experts produced ITIs ( M = 531.43 ms) that were further from the new target ITI of 510 ms, reflecting an overshoot, whereas novices produced ITIs ( M = 496.47 ms) that remained closer to the baseline ITI of 500 ms, indicating limited adjustment to the step change. In the not detected condition, the ITIs were more similar between groups (experts: M = 512.27 ms, novices: M = 509.74 ms), with both groups producing ITIs closer to the target interval of 510 ms. At Δ t₂–₃ , a significant interaction was also found, F (1, 102) = 11.839, p = .001, η² = .104. In the detected condition, novices ( M = 524.12 ms) deviated further from the target ITI of 510 ms, while experts ( M = 500.00 ms) maintained ITIs close to the baseline rather than adjusting toward the target. In contrast, the not detected condition for both experts and novices ( M = 510.91 ms) maintained ITIs nearly identical to the new target, reflecting the most precise adaptation among all subgroups. At mean C, a significant main effect of step change detection was observed, F (1, 102) = 8.851, p = .004, η² = .080. The mean ITI was 518.95 ms in the detected group and 511.73 ms in the not detected group, with the not detected group maintaining ITIs closer to the target value of 510 ms. No significant interaction was found. 3.1.3. RA: −Δt condition At position Δ t₁ , a significant interaction between group and detection was found, F (1, 112) = 4.924, p = .028, η² = .042. In the detected condition, novices showed more negative RA ( M = − 46.33 ms) than experts ( M = − 11.00 ms), whereas in the not detected condition, both groups showed relatively similar values (experts: M = − 16.59 ms, novices: M = − 10.87 ms). At positions Δ t₂–₃ , a significant interaction between group and detection was also found, F (1, 112) = 4.214, p = .042, η² = .036. In the detected condition, novices showed greater negative RA ( M = − 48.33 ms) than experts ( M = − 21.00 ms), while group differences were not significant in the not detected condition. At mean C, a significant main effect of group was observed, F (1, 112) = 21.566, p < .001, η² = .161, with non-dancers showing greater negative RA ( M = − 45.25 ms) than dancers ( M = − 10.39 ms). Although no significant main effect of step change detection was observed, a significant interaction between group and detection was found, F (1, 112) = 6.556, p = .012, η² = .055. In the detected condition, experts showed markedly smaller negative RA ( M = − 0.16 ms) than novices ( M = − 54.24 ms). Under the not detected condition, experts also showed smaller negative RA ( M = − 20.62 ms) than novices ( M = − 36.26 ms). 3.1.4. RA: +Δt condition At Δ t₁ and Δ t₂–₃ , no significant main effects or interactions were observed, indicating similar asynchrony patterns regardless of group or detection status in the initial adaptation phases. At mean C, significant main effects of group, F (1, 96) = 6.431, p = .013, η² = .063, and detection, F (1, 96) = 5.269, p = .024, η² = .052, were found, along with a significant interaction effect, F (1, 96) = 4.289, p = .041, η² = .043. Experts showed smaller negative RA values ( M = − 19.73 ms) than novices ( M = − 45.49 ms), and participants who did not detect the step change showed smaller negative RA ( M = − 20.95 ms) than those who did ( M = − 44.27 ms). The interaction reflected a more pronounced group difference in the detected condition (experts: M = − 20.87 ms, novices: M = − 67.67 ms) than in the not detected condition (experts: M = − 18.59 ms, novices: M = − 23.32 ms). 3.1.5. PCR: −Δt condition There were no significant main effects of group or step change detection, and no significant interaction was observed. 3.1.6. PCR: +Δt condition A significant main effect of group was observed, F (1, 102) = 10.503, p = .002, η² = .093. Both experts ( M = 9.35 ms) and novices ( M = − 8.13 ms) exhibited mean PCR values close to zero, indicating overall accurate phase correction. However, the directionality differed: experts tended to under-correct, responding slightly faster than the new tempo, whereas novices showed a slight overshoot, responding more slowly than the target tempo. No significant main effect of detection or interaction was found. However, a significant interaction between group and detection was observed, F (1, 102) = 6.553, p = .012, η² = .060. In the detected condition, experts demonstrated mean PCR values that were closer to zero ( M = 13.29 ms) compared to novices ( M = − 18.00 ms), indicating that experts’ phase corrections were more precisely aligned with the target tempo following detection of the step change. In the not detected condition, both experts ( M = 5.41 ms) and novices ( M = 1.74 ms) exhibited PCR values close to zero, indicating that neither group made substantial phase corrections. 3.2. Experiment 2: Sensorimotor adaptation to large step changes (±ΔT) 3.2.1. ITI: −ΔT condition At position Δ T₁ , a significant main effect of step-change magnitude was observed, F (2, 282) = 12.928, p < .001, η² = .084. No significant main effect of group or interaction between group and magnitude was found. At positions Δ T₂–₃ , both a significant main effect of step-change magnitude, F (2, 282) = 252.144, p < .001, η² = .641, and a significant main effect of group, F (1, 282) = 13.171, p < .001, η² = .045, were observed. A significant interaction between group and step-change magnitude also emerged, F (2, 282) = 18.639, p < .001, η² = .117. Bonferroni-adjusted comparisons revealed that, in the 100 ms condition, novices produced ITIs ( M = 415.10 ms) closer to the new target (400 ms) than experts ( M = 353.33 ms). At mean C, a similar pattern was observed. A strong main effect of step-change magnitude was found, F (2, 282) = 1064.656, p < .001, η² = .883. No significant main effect of group was observed, but the interaction between group and step-change magnitude was significant, F (2, 282) = 5.514, p = .004, η² = .038. In the 100 ms condition, both groups produced mean ITIs close to the target ITI of 400 ms, with experts ( M = 396.31 ms) being slightly but significantly closer than novices ( M = 404.52 ms), p = .018. In the 150 ms condition, both groups produced mean ITIs shorter than the target ITI of 400 ms, but experts ( M = 345.39 ms) were significantly closer to the target ITI than novices ( M = 337.50 ms), p = .023. 3.2.2. ITI: +ΔT condition At position Δ T₁ , a significant main effect of step-change magnitude was observed, F (2, 282) = 40.850, p < .001, η² = .225. No significant main effect of group or interaction between group and magnitude was found. At positions Δ T₂–₃ , a significant main effect of step-change magnitude was found, F (2, 282) = 293.724, p < .001, η² = .676. No significant main effect of group or interaction was observed. At mean C, the continuation phase, the main effect of tempo-change magnitude remained highly significant, F (2, 282) = 2145.374, p < .001, η² = .938. Neither the main effect of group nor the interaction between group and magnitude was significant. 3.2.3. RA: −ΔT condition At position Δ T₁ , significant main effects of group, F (1, 282) = 7.58, p = .006, η² = .026, and step-change magnitude, F (1, 282) = 9.79, p < .001, η² = .065, and their interaction, F (1, 282) = 4.09, p = .018, η² = .028, were observed. In the 100 ms condition, experts showed significantly smaller mean RA ( M = -22.33 ms) than novices ( M = -64.58 ms), p < .001. No significant differences were found between groups at the 50 ms and 150 ms conditions. At positions Δ T₂–₃ , both the main effect of group, F (1, 282) = 17.16, p < .001, η² = .057, and ste[-change magnitude, F (1, 282) = 30.55, p < .001, η² = .178, as well as the interaction, F (2, 282) = 5.342, p = .005, η² = .037, were significant. In the 100 ms condition, experts again showed significantly less negative RA ( M = -112.85 ms) than novices ( M = -193.96 ms), p < .001, and in the 150 ms condition, experts also showed smaller negative RA ( M = -58.59 ms) than novices ( M = -114.10 ms), p = .003. At mean C, there was a significant main effect of group, F (1, 282) = 43.479, p < .001, η² = .134, a significant main effect of step-change magnitude, F (2, 282) = 32.969, p < .001, η² = .190, and a significant interaction, F (2, 282) = 26.822, p < .001, η² = .160. Bonferroni-adjusted comparisons revealed that, in the 100 ms condition, experts had a mean RA close to zero ( M = 5.38 ms) while novices had a much larger negative RA ( M = -179.17 ms), p < .001; there were no significant group differences at 50 ms or 150 ms. 3.2.4. RA: +ΔT condition At position Δ T₁ , there were no significant main effects of group or step-change magnitude, nor any significant interaction. At positions Δ T₂–₃ , a significant main effect of group was observed, F (1, 282) = 7.306, p = .007, η² = .025. Experts showed significantly lower RA ( M = 2.21 ms) than novices ( M = 28.59 ms). There was also a significant main effect of step-change magnitude, F (2, 282) = 15.362, p < .001, η² = .098, and a significant interaction between group and step-change magnitude, F (2, 282) = 5.499, p = .005, η² = .038. In the 150 ms condition, experts showed significantly lower mean RA ( M = 17.67 ms) than novices ( M = 88.38 ms), p < .001. At mean C, only the main effect of step-change magnitude reached significance, F (2, 282) = 8.417, p < .001, η² = .056. No significant group or interaction effects were found. 3.2.5. PCR: −ΔT condition A significant main effect of step-change magnitude was found, F (2, 282) = 20.758, p < .001, η² = .128. As the magnitude of the step change increased, PCR values became more negative, indicating larger phase corrections in both groups. Specifically, the mean PCR was − 43.79 ms in the 50 ms condition, − 113.44 ms in the 100 ms condition, and − 85.32 ms in the 150 ms condition. However, there was no significant main effect of group and no significant interaction between group and step-change magnitude, suggesting that experts and novices showed similar patterns of phase correction across all step-change magnitudes. Descriptively, experts showed mean PCRs of − 47.96 ms (50 ms), − 101.46 ms (100 ms), and − 71.60 ms (150 ms), while novices showed − 39.63 ms, − 125.42 ms, and − 99.04 ms for the respective conditions. Although novices tended to exhibit slightly more negative PCR values than experts as the step-change magnitude increased, these differences were not statistically significant. 3.2.6. PCR: +ΔT condition A significant main effect of step-change magnitude was observed, F (2, 273) = 151.167, p < .001, η² = .525. As the step-change magnitude increased, PCR values became more positive, indicating a larger phase correction response in both groups. The mean PCR was 15.58 ms in the 50 ms condition, 15.55 ms in the 100 ms condition, and 137.85 ms in the 150 ms condition. Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparisons revealed that the PCR in the 150 ms condition was significantly greater than in both the 50 ms and 100 ms conditions, whereas there was no significant difference between the 50 ms and 100 ms conditions. There was no significant main effect of group and no significant interaction between group and step-change magnitude, indicating that experts and novices exhibited similar patterns of phase correction across all step-change magnitudes. Descriptively, experts showed mean PCRs of 14.08 ms (50 ms), 8.96 ms (100 ms), and 136.38 ms (150 ms), while novices showed 17.08 ms, 22.14 ms, and 139.33 ms, respectively. These values demonstrate parallel trends between groups, with no statistically significant differences at any step-change magnitude. 4. Discussion 4.1. Experiment 1: Sensorimotor adaptation to small step changes (±Δt) Under the − Δ t condition, participants who detected the tempo acceleration produced ITIs that were closer to the new target value in both the early (Δ t₂–₃ ) and continued (mean C) positions. This pattern may be attributed to greater sensitivity to temporal deviation, which enabled more successful period correction in response to the step change in tempo (Repp, 2005a ; Mates, 1994 ). These findings support the notion of perception–action coupling framwork, in which awareness of temporal perturbations supports responsive motor adjustment (Repp & Keller, 2004 ; Maes et al., 2014 ). In contrast, group differences were more clearly reflected in RA, which represent phase correction. Across all positions, dancers showed significantly smaller negative RA values than non-dancers, particularly in the detected condition. This may reflect sensorimotor expertise acquired through dance training, as dancers are known to develop superior internal timing representations and more efficient error-monitoring strategies (Bläsing et al., 2012 ; Karpati et al., 2016 ; Tierney & Kraus, 2013 ). PCR showed no significant effects, suggesting that adaptation under small perturbations relied more on sustained timing adjustment than on immediate phase resetting. Under the + Δ t condition, significant interactions between group and detection were observed in ITI at both the perturbation response (Δ t₁ ) and early adaptation (Δ t₂–₃ ) positions. Interestingly, when the step change was not detected, both groups produced ITIs closer to the new target interval (510 ms). However, when the step change was detected, dancers initially over-adjusted, demonstrating earlier period correction compared to non-dancers. This diverges from the − Δt condition, where detection was associated with more successful period correction. Notably, in the + Δt condition, the absence of perceptual detection was linked to ITIs that were closer to the new target interval, indicating smoother temporal adaptation when the step change remained outside conscious awareness. This pattern suggests that explicit detection may sometimes interfere with optimal period correction, possibly due to increased cognitive processing or voluntary adjustment strategies (Repp, 2005b ; Repp & Su, 2013 ). Moreover, the directional asymmetry observed, where + Δ t elicited stronger adjustment without detection, unlike − Δ t , may reflect inherent differences in how the brain processes tempo acceleration versus deceleration. Neuroimaging studies have shown distinct neural engagement depending on tempo direction: during acceleration, networks including the prefrontal cortex and precuneus are more active, whereas deceleration engages cerebellar and superior temporal regions more heavily(Adhikari et al., 2013 ; Schulze et al., 2005 ; Schwartze et al., 2011 ). This suggests that acceleration and deceleration may rely on partially distinct neural pathways, potentially leading to asymmetric automatic correction efficiency. In RA, both group and detection effects were observed at the continued position (mean C). The smaller negative RA values observed in the dancer group are consistent with earlier findings showing that individuals with extensive sensorimotor training tend to produce more accurate anticipatory timing under continuous rhythmic demands (Bläsing et al., 2012 ; Karpati et al., 2017 ; Tierney & Kraus, 2013 ). Moreover, the lower negative RA in the not-detected group suggests that implicit timing processes can maintain synchronisation when tempo changes remain below perceptual threshold (Schwartze et al., 2011 ; Thaut et al., 1998 ). In contrast, PCR analysis revealed a significant interaction between group and detection. While experts tended to show positive PCR values and novices negative values in the detected condition, this pattern suggests opposite correction tendencies between groups following detection. However, given the small magnitude of the step change, these differences likely reflect general variation in temporal responsiveness rather than fundamentally distinct corrective mechanisms. 4.2. Experiment 2: Sensorimotor adaptation to large step changes (±ΔT) Under the − Δ T condition, As the magnitude of the tempo increase became larger (i.e., as the step size increased from 50 ms to 150 ms), participants produced progressively shorter ITIs, indicating adaptation to faster tempi. This pattern suggests that participants effectively engaged period correction mechanisms to adjust their tapping intervals in response to increasingly rapid tempo accelerations. At the early (Δ T₂–₃ ) and continuation (mean C) positions, experts produced ITIs that were closer to the new target interval than those of novices in the 100 ms condition. This performance advantage was not observed at the 150 ms condition, suggesting that the benefit of dance expertise in period correction may be most evident when the tempo change remains within a range that supports accurate internal adjustment (Repp, 2005b ; Schulze et al., 2005 ). However, group differences remained robust in RA across all positions, including 150 ms. Experts consistently exhibited smaller negative RA than novices, indicating more precise phase correction even under more challenging perturbations. This pattern suggests that while expertise-related advantages in recalibrating interval duration may diminish under large step changes, stability in phase correction is more resilient, consistent with previous findings on internal timing robustness in skilled performers (Bläsing et al., 2012 ; Repp & Su, 2013 ). PCR values tended to be more negative for novices than for dancers, but the difference was not statistically significant. This suggests that both groups employed comparable levels of immediate phase resetting in response to the step change. Collectively, these findings indicate that adaptation to large tempo accelerations (−Δ T ) engaged both period and phase correction processes. Expertise-related advantages in synchronisation accuracy, evident in more precise ITIs and smaller negative RA values, were most apparent at moderate perturbation sizes (100 ms), but tended to diminish as the step change became more extreme. Under the + ΔT condition, participants systematically increased their tapping intervals as the step-change magnitude grew, as evidenced by progressively longer ITIs across all positions. This pattern is consistent with previous findings that large tempo decelerations primarily recruit period correction mechanisms, enabling individuals to recalibrate their internal timing in response to marked rhythmic perturbations (Repp, 2005b ; Schulze et al., 2005 ). No significant group differences or interactions were observed in ITI at any position, supporting the notion that, when faced with substantial tempo changes, both experts and novices employ broadly similar adjustment strategies regardless of sensorimotor expertise (Repp & Su, 2013 ; Karpati et al., 2017 ). For RA, a significant group difference emerged only at the early adaptation positions (Δ T₂–₃ ), where experts showed lower RA values than novices, indicating slightly more precise phase timing in experts at this stage. This transient advantage is in line with research showing that sensorimotor expertise can facilitate initial error correction and temporal prediction during abrupt tempo changes (Tierney & Kraus, 2013 ; Bläsing et al., 2012 ). However, the absence of group or interaction effects in the continuation phase (mean C) suggests that this benefit is not sustained. This may reflect the rapid and automatic nature of phase correction, allowing both groups to achieve synchronisation after initial adjustment (Repp, 2005b ). PCR analysis revealed that as the magnitude of the step change increased, both groups exhibited progressively larger positive PCR values, reflecting greater phase correction in response to larger perturbations. The absence of significant differences in PCR between experts and novices across all magnitudes suggests that immediate phase resetting is governed by general sensorimotor mechanisms rather than by specialised training (Repp, 2005a ; Repp & Su, 2013 ). These results extend previous research by highlighting the limited scope of expertise-related benefits when facing large rhythmic changes, and underscore the robustness and universality of adaptive timing processes across individuals. Despite these insights, several limitations should be acknowledged. The relatively small and homogeneous sample restricts the generalisability of the findings, and the use of simple tapping tasks with auditory cues may not fully capture the complexity of real-world rhythmic behaviour. Future research should address these issues by including more diverse participant groups and adopting ecologically valid movement tasks. In addition, further studies are needed to clarify the neural and cognitive mechanisms underlying implicit adaptation, and to determine whether these adaptation patterns generalise to broader populations and naturalistic settings. 5. Conclusion This study investigated the effects of the direction and magnitude of abrupt tempo changes, dance expertise, and perceptual awareness on sensorimotor adaptation during rhythmic synchronisation. The results showed that, for small tempo accelerations (−Δ t ), perceptual detection was critical: participants who detected the step change adapted more accurately to the new tempo, demonstrating that perceptual awareness of tempo changes promotes more successful temporal adjustment. In contrast, for small tempo decelerations (+Δ t ), participants who did not consciously detect the change exhibited the most precise adaptation, highlighting the benefit of implicit correction under these conditions. For large tempo changes (±Δ T ), the pattern of adaptation depended on both the size and direction of the perturbation. Expertise-related advantages were evident only at moderate levels of acceleration (-100 ms), whereas for the largest changes and for decelerations, group differences were minimal. Across all conditions, no significant group differences were found in immediate phase resetting, indicating that rapid phase correction relies on general sensorimotor mechanisms shared by all individuals. Taken together, these findings highlight the context-dependent nature of expertise and perceptual awareness in rhythmic adaptation, and the central role of universal timing mechanisms under substantial tempo changes. These insights may inform the development of training and intervention programmes in music, dance, and sports, and contribute to strategies supporting sensorimotor adaptation in older adults and clinical populations. Declarations Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Funding This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF - 2022R1A6A3A01086887). Institutional Review Board Statement The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University (IRB No. 2104/004-027). References Adhikari, B. M., Quinn, K. M., & Dhamala, M. (2013). Is the brain's inertia for motor movements different for acceleration and deceleration?. PloS one, 8(10), e78055. Bläsing, B., Calvo-Merino, B., Cross, E. S., Jola, C., Honisch, J., & Stevens, C. J. (2012). Neurocognitive control in dance perception and performance. Acta Psychologica, 139(2), 300–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.005 Blecher, T., Tal, I., & Ben-Shachar, M. (2016). White matter microstructural properties correlate with sensorimotor synchronization abilities. NeuroImage, 138, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.013 Brown, S., Martinez, M. J., & Parsons, L. M. (2006). The neural basis of human dance. Cerebral Cortex, 16 (8), 1157–1167. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhj057 Cannon, J., & Patel, A. D. (2021). How beat perception co-opts motor neurophysiology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(2), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.11.002 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39 (2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 Grahn, J. A. (2012). Neural mechanisms of rhythm perception: current findings and future perspectives. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 585-606. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01213.x Grahn, J. A., & Brett, M. (2007). Rhythm and beat perception in motor areas of the brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(5), 893–906. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.5.893 Karpati, F. J., Giacosa, C., Foster, N. E., Penhune, V. B., & Hyde, K. L. (2016). Sensorimotor integration is enhanced in dancers and musicians. Experimental Brain Research, 234, 893-903. Karpati, F. J., Giacosa, C., Foster, N. E. V., Penhune, V. B., & Hyde, K. L. (2017). Dance and music share gray matter structural correlates. Brain Research, 1657 , 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2016.11.016 Loehr, J. D., Large, E. W., & Palmer, C. (2011). Temporal coordination and adaptation to rate change in music performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(4), 1292–1309. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023092 Maes, P. J., Leman, M., Palmer, C., & Wanderley, M. M. (2014). Action-based effects on music perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 4 , 1008. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.01008 Mates, J. (1994). A model of synchronization of motor acts to a stimulus sequence: I. Timing and error correction. Biological Cybernetics, 70 (5), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00203239 Miura, A., Kudo, K., Ohtsuki, T., & Kanehisa, H. (2016). Finger-to-beat coordination skill of non-dancers, street dancers, and the general public: Skill-dependent modulation of visual information use in a dance observation task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(4), 1045–1058. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1063-8 Nam, S. M., Park, J. W., Ko, J. H., & Kim, M. J. (2024). The difference between expert dancers’ and non-dancers tapping timing with and without an auditory stimulus at a slow tempo. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 131(4), 1398–1414. https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125241243252 Nguyen, T., Sidhu, R. K., Everling, J. C., Wickett, M. C., Gibbings, A., & Grahn, J. A. (2022). Beat perception and production in musicians and dancers. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 39(3), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2022.39.3.229 Praamstra, P., Turgeon, M., Hesse, C. W., Wing, A. M., & Perryer, L. (2003). Neurophysiological correlates of error correction in sensorimotor-synchronization. Neuroimage, 20(2), 1283-1297. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00398-2 Thaut, M. H., Miller, R. A., & Schauer, L. M. (1998). Multiple synchronization strategies in rhythmic sensorimotor tasks: phase vs period correction. Biological cybernetics, 79(3), 241-250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004220050472 Tierney, A., & Kraus, N. (2013). The ability to move to a beat is linked to the consistency of neural responses to sound. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(38), 14981–14988. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0612-13.2013 Repp, B. H. (2001). Processes underlying adaptation to step changes in sensorimotor synchronization. Human Movement Science, 20(3), 277–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9457(01)00049-5 Repp, B. H. (2005a). Sensorimotor synchronization: A review of the tapping literature. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12 (6), 969–992. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206433 Repp, B. H. (2005b). Sensorimotor synchronization and perception of timing: Effects of music training and task experience. Human Movement Science, 24(5–6), 893–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2005.10.002 Repp, B. H. (2010). Sensorimotor synchronization and perception of timing: Effects of music training and task experience. Human Movement Science, 29(2), 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2009.08.002 Repp, B. H. (2011). Tapping in synchrony with a perturbed metronome: The phase correction response to small and large phase shifts as a function of tempo. Journal of Motor Behavior, 43(3), 213-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2011.557404 Repp, B. H., & Keller, P. E. (2004). Adaptation to step changes in sensorimotor synchronization: Effects of intention, attention, and awareness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57(3), 499–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000369 Repp, B. H., & Penel, A. (2002). Auditory dominance in temporal processing: New evidence from synchronization with simultaneous visual and auditory sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28 (5), 1085–1099. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.5.1085 Repp, B. H., & Su, Y.-H. (2013). Sensorimotor synchronization: A review of recent research (2006–2012). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(3), 403–452. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0371-2 Rimmele, J. M., Morillon, B., Poeppel, D., & Arnal, L. H. (2018). Proactive sensing of periodic and aperiodic auditory patterns. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(10), 870-882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.07.007 Scheurich, R., Pfordresher, P. Q., & Palmer, C. (2020). Musical training enhances temporal adaptation of auditory-motor synchronization. Experimental Brain Research, 238 (1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-019-05716-6 Schulze, H. H., Cordes, A., & Vorberg, D. (2005). Keeping synchrony while tempo changes: Accelerando and ritardando. Music Perception, 22(3), 461-477. Schwartze, M., Keller, P. E., Patel, A. D., & Kotz, S. A. (2011). The impact of basal ganglia lesions on sensorimotor synchronization, spontaneous motor tempo, and the detection of tempo changes. Behavioural brain research, 216(2), 685-691. Stephan, K. M., Thaut, M. H., Wunderlich, G., Schicks, W., Tian, B., Tellmann, L., ... & Hömberg, V. (2002). Conscious and subconscious sensorimotor synchronization—prefrontal cortex and the influence of awareness. Neuroimage, 15(2), 345-352. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0982 Taylor, J. A., Krakauer, J. W., & Ivry, R. B. (2014). Explicit and implicit contributions to learning in a sensorimotor adaptation task. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(8), 3023-3032. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3619-13.2014 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7194374","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":492732951,"identity":"f17694aa-5eb4-4bf1-96ce-9b050cbe3b00","order_by":0,"name":"Soo Mi Nam","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hanyang University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Soo","middleName":"Mi","lastName":"Nam","suffix":""},{"id":492732953,"identity":"c5b72fe5-a411-405d-9b40-0c7343ce3ff1","order_by":1,"name":"Jaeuk Jeong","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Seoul National University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jaeuk","middleName":"","lastName":"Jeong","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-23 09:08:20","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7194374/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7194374/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":88094688,"identity":"2b498433-43f7-454a-af9b-2ebfd0904c82","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-01 10:49:16","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":25314,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSchematic illustration of a trial structure under the slower step change condition (i.e., +Δ in ISI). Auditory stimuli were presented at a constant tempo (ISI = 500 ms) until a phase shift (Δ) was introduced, triggering a tempo perturbation. Participants tapped in synchrony with the tones, and each tap's asynchrony (stimulus onset minus tap onset) was calculated. Phase correction response (PCR) was defined as the change in asynchrony from Δ\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e to Δ\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e. Subsequent taps (Δ\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e, C\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e, C\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, etc.) reflect continued synchronisation to the new timing.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7194374/v1/eb2bb841f3be434793993150.png"},{"id":88094689,"identity":"8e3496df-42b9-4183-85f8-e7252a265e5c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-01 10:49:16","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":80293,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMean inter-tap interval (ITI) at each sequence position relative to the step change (−Δ\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e condition) in (a) experts and (b) novices. Solid lines with filled circles represent trials in which the step change was detected, while dotted lines with open squares indicate trials in which the change was not detected. Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7194374/v1/adb46ec26d9dee0cd40cd19f.png"},{"id":88094699,"identity":"b96a8eee-8346-4b64-a224-96c2dc99204d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-01 10:49:16","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":80964,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMean inter-tap interval (ITI) at each sequence position relative to the step change (+Δt condition) in (c) experts and (d) novices. Solid lines with filled circles represent trials in which the step change was detected, while dotted lines with open squares indicate trials in which the change was not detected. Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7194374/v1/4996ee1d44ecaad061936350.png"},{"id":88096648,"identity":"4d50a677-d17a-4ed2-b2c4-740b3a95ea03","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-01 10:57:16","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":77621,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMean relative asynchrony (RA) at each sequence position relative to the step change (−Δt condition) in (a) experts and (b) novices. Solid lines with filled circles represent trials in which the step change was detected, while dotted lines with open squares indicate trials in which the change was not detected. Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7194374/v1/b31e9d4bd3a7ecda8bfa8d51.png"},{"id":88094694,"identity":"7c6290ba-f231-4159-ad5f-6bfaa077b4d3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-01 10:49:16","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":79847,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMean relative asynchrony (RA) at each sequence position relative to the step change (+Δ\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e condition) in (c) experts and (d) novices. Solid lines with filled circles represent trials in which the step change was detected, while dotted lines with open squares indicate trials in which the change was not detected. Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7194374/v1/451aa64b84ba37dcd0e67e5b.png"},{"id":88097598,"identity":"f821d82d-f679-448a-948d-6613697b9e78","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-01 11:05:16","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":298285,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMean inter-tap interval (ITI) at each sequence position relative to the step change for experts (solid circles and lines) and novices (open squares and dotted lines) across three step change magnitudes: 50 ms, 100 ms, and 150 ms. Panels (a–c) present results for the −Δ\u003cem\u003eT\u003c/em\u003e condition, while panels (d–f) present results for the +Δ\u003cem\u003eT\u003c/em\u003econdition. Specifically, (a) and (d) correspond to a 50 ms step change, (b) and (e) to 100 ms, and (c) and (f) to 150 ms. Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7194374/v1/ef36f7413df609b590018ce8.png"},{"id":88094705,"identity":"e53c7a8e-53a1-4abf-98aa-d348475682a9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-01 10:49:16","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":280114,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMean relative asynchrony (RA) at each sequence position relative to the step change for experts (solid circles and lines) and novices (open squares and dotted lines) across three step change magnitudes: 50 ms, 100 ms, and 150 ms. Panels (a–c) present results for the −Δ\u003cem\u003eT \u003c/em\u003econdition, while panels (d–f) present results for the +Δ\u003cem\u003eT\u003c/em\u003e condition. Specifically, (a) and (d) correspond to a 50 ms step change, (b) and (e) to 100 ms, and (c) and (f) to 150 ms. Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7194374/v1/2c61b3ba7eedca13160bec48.png"},{"id":91223230,"identity":"93c4599e-c353-4567-a126-9983db5e37ec","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-13 00:46:16","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1911080,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7194374/v1/f43fabe6-0ee4-4d50-8746-a32bc37373cc.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Distinct roles of expertise and perceptual awareness in sensorimotor adaptation to abrupt tempo changes","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePrecise temporal coordination is fundamental to a wide range of human behaviours, from everyday actions such as walking and speaking to highly specialised activities such as playing music or performing rhythmic movement sequences. These behaviours often require individuals to align their motor output with external temporal cues, a process known as sensorimotor synchronisation (SMS). SMS emerges from the continuous interplay between perception and action, enabling rhythmic behaviour to be flexibly adapted to changes in external timing signals (Grahn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Among experimental paradigms, the finger tapping task has been widely used to provide a controlled setting for investigating SMS, as it allows for detailed analysis of how rhythmic motor output is aligned with external cues.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecent work has further demonstrated that beat perception actively recruits motor-related neural circuits, supporting proactive prediction and anticipatory sensorimotor processes (Cannon \u0026amp; Patel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Rimmele et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In particular, tasks involving repeated movement in time with an external rhythm demand not only accurate synchronisation but also flexible adaptation when the temporal structure changes. Given the inherent variability in motor timing, error correction mechanisms are essential for maintaining phase constancy between stimulus and response.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeminal models of sensorimotor adaptation, such as the dual-process framework proposed by Mates (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e) and further elaborated by Repp \u0026amp; Keller (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), distinguish two distinct error correction mechanisms that support adaptation to temporal perturbations. Phase correction refers to the rapid adjustment of individual tap timing to minimise the observed asynchrony between stimulus and response, without modifying the internal timekeeper period. In contrast, period correction is characterised by a gradual adjustment of the internal timekeeper\u0026rsquo;s period in response to discrepancies between the internal tempo and the preceding inter-stimulus interval (ISI). These two mechanisms can operate simultaneously following an abrupt tempo change, allowing both immediate and sustained adaptation. Neurophysiological studies have identified dissociable neural correlates for phase and period correction, with error-related brain activity supporting these distinct adjustment processes (Grahn, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Praamstra et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Importantly, the relative efficiency and expression of these mechanisms have been found to vary as a function of individual characteristics, particularly rhythmic expertise acquired through musical training or dance experience. This has motivated research examining group differences in SMS adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMusicians have consistently been shown to synchronise their movements with greater temporal precision and to exhibit more robust phase correction responses compared to non-musicians (Loehr et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Repp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Scheurich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This superior adaptability is attributed to extensive training in aligning motor actions with complex rhythmic patterns, which strengthens internal timekeeping and error correction processes (Scheurich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Comparable effects have been reported for individuals with dance experience, who typically undergo years of intensive sensorimotor practice. Dance training is associated with neuroplastic changes in the brain, and expert dancers have demonstrated superior sensorimotor integration and timing abilities (Bl\u0026auml;sing et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Miura et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, individuals with ballroom dance experience display enhanced SMS performance and the capacity to synchronise across a broader range of tempi, particularly when music is present (Karpati et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). These behavioural advantages are paralleled by overlapping neural adaptations in both musicians and dancers, especially in networks supporting auditory\u0026ndash;motor integration and predictive timing (Blecher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Brown et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Grahn \u0026amp; Brett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). However, some studies have found no clear advantage for dancers in basic finger tapping tasks, suggesting that expertise effects may depend on the ecological validity of the task and are more pronounced in full-body movements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough previous studies have highlighted the benefits of musical and dance expertise for sensorimotor synchronisation, there remain ongoing debates regarding the precise nature of adaptation mechanisms and their dependence on both motor expertise and perceptual awareness. A growing body of work now differentiates between explicit (conscious) and implicit (automatic) adaptation, revealing that awareness can modulate the relative contributions of phase and period correction (Taylor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Stephan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). In particular, prior research has reported mixed findings concerning whether dance expertise confers clear advantages in simple finger tapping tasks, raising questions about the ecological validity of commonly used laboratory paradigms and the extent to which expertise effects generalise across different forms of rhythmic movement. Furthermore, the respective contributions of phase and period correction and their modulation by perceptual awareness are still actively discussed in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe present study was specifically designed to resolve ongoing debates about the mechanisms underlying sensorimotor adaptation to abrupt tempo changes. By directly comparing individuals with and without movement-based rhythmic training, we employed a position-specific analytical framework (Repp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Repp \u0026amp; Keller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) to dissociate immediate and sustained phases of adaptation. Crucially, our experimental design incorporated explicit assessment of participants\u0026rsquo; perceptual awareness of tempo shifts, enabling us to disentangle the respective contributions of conscious detection and sensorimotor expertise to adaptive timing behaviour. By systematically manipulating both the magnitude of step changes and participants\u0026rsquo; training background, our approach provides new insights into how sensorimotor expertise and perceptual awareness interact to shape flexible synchronisation in human movement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe aim of this study was to determine how sensorimotor expertise and perceptual awareness jointly influence adaptation to sudden changes in rhythmic structure, and whether these effects depend on the magnitude of the tempo perturbation. Based on previous literature, we expected that individuals with extensive rhythmic training would exhibit more precise adaptation, particularly under conditions of moderate tempo change, and that conscious detection of tempo shifts would further enhance adaptive performance, especially during the early phase of correction. Furthermore, we anticipated that as the size of the step change increased, the advantages of expertise and perceptual awareness would diminish, reflecting the limits of sensorimotor adaptation under substantial perturbations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1. Participants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThirty-two healthy right-handed adults (16 dancers: 6 males, 10 females, mean age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;32.33\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.01 years, mean dance experience\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26.82\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.98 years; 16 non-dancers: 6 males, 10 females, mean age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;33.56\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.23 years, no formal dance or music training) participated in the study. All participants reported no history of neurological, psychiatric, or sensorimotor impairments. The sample size was determined a priori using G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) for a two-way ANOVA (effect size \u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.33, \u003cem\u003eα\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05, power\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.80), which indicated a required sample of 75; however, the current sample size (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;32) was deemed acceptable based on precedents in similar SMS research (Repp, 2006; Repp \u0026amp; Penel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the experiment, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the university (IRB No. 2104/004\u0026ndash;027).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2. Apparatus and Stimulus\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAuditory stimuli and tapping responses were presented and recorded using a custom LabVIEW program, originally developed and validated in a prior tapping study (Nam et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The program was designed to assess rhythm perception and sensorimotor synchronisation under controlled step-change conditions. Participants tapped the '5' key of a numeric keypad, using their right index finger, in synchrony with metronome tones delivered via headphones. To minimise motor variability, all other keys were removed from the keypad.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e The auditory stimulus consisted of isochronous metronome tones with a baseline inter-stimulus interval (ISI) of 500 ms. Each trial began with 8 to 10 repetitions of the 500 ISI, followed by 11 repetitions with an altered ISI, representing either a small or large step change. The number of initial baseline tones was randomly varied to reduce predictability of step change onset.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe experiment consisted of two parts. In Experiment 1, participants performed 100 tapping trials, comprising 50 trials with a \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;10 ms tempo shift and 50 trials with a\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;10 ms shift relative to the 500 ms baseline. These small perturbations (\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10 ms) are hereafter denoted as Δ\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e, indicating subtle step changes near the perceptual threshold for tempo variation (Repp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Repp \u0026amp; Keller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). In Experiment 2, six tempo-change conditions (\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;50, \u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;100, and \u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;150 ms) were tested and denoted as Δ\u003cem\u003eT\u003c/em\u003e to represent large step changes. Each Δ\u003cem\u003eT\u003c/em\u003e condition was crossed with three baseline repetition levels (8, 9, or 10 ISIs), resulting in 18 unique trials. Each trial was presented twice in random order, yielding a total of 36 tapping trials. This limited number of repetitions was considered sufficient for robust estimation of responses to clearly perceivable step changes, while minimising participant fatigue. Similar protocols with low trial counts have been employed in previous large-step tempo studies (Repp \u0026amp; Keller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.3. Experimental procedure\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Prior to participation, all individuals received a verbal explanation of the study procedures and provided written informed consent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants were tested individually in a quiet room, seated comfortably at a desk with the right index finger positioned on the designated response key of a keypad fixed to the surface. Auditory stimuli were delivered through headphones, and participants were instructed to tap in synchrony with the metronome tones as accurately and consistently as possible. They were informed in advance that a step change might or might not occur during each trial, and if a change was perceived, they were asked to immediately adapt their tapping to the new tempo.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Experiment 1, participants completed 100 trials, consisting of 50 trials with a\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Δ\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e tempo shift and 50 trials with a \u0026ndash;Δ\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e shift. After each trial, participants provided a verbal report indicating whether they had perceived a step change, and if so, whether it was perceived as faster or slower.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Experiment 2, participants completed 36 trials, covering six Δ\u003cem\u003eT\u003c/em\u003e conditions (\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;50, \u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;100, and \u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;150 ms) crossed with three levels of baseline repetitions (8, 9, or 10 ISIs). Each of the resulting 18 trial types was repeated twice in random order. The entire session, including instructions and scheduled breaks, lasted approximately 45 minutes per participant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.4. Data analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData were analysed focusing on three dependent variables: inter-tap interval (ITI), relative asynchrony (RA), and phase correction response (PCR). From each trial, 16 consecutive taps were extracted: five preceding and eleven following the step change.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo capture the temporal dynamics of adaptation, each trial was segmented into three functionally distinct positions: the perturbation response (Δ\u003cem\u003e₁\u003c/em\u003e), early adjustment (Δ\u003cem\u003e₂\u0026ndash;₃\u003c/em\u003e), and continuation (mean C). Δ\u003cem\u003e₁\u003c/em\u003e corresponded to the tap coinciding with the onset of the step change, Δ\u003cem\u003e₂\u003c/em\u003e and Δ\u003cem\u003e₃\u003c/em\u003e reflected the early timing adjustment response, and the subsequent seven taps were averaged to represent the continuation phase. A schematic overview of this structure is provided in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. For clarity, the tap positions analysed in this study are referred to as Δ\u003cem\u003et₁\u003c/em\u003e, Δ\u003cem\u003et₂\u0026ndash;₃\u003c/em\u003e, and mean C in Experiment 1 (small step change), and as Δ\u003cem\u003eT₁\u003c/em\u003e, Δ\u003cem\u003eT₂\u0026ndash;₃\u003c/em\u003e, and mean C in Experiment 2 (large step change).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eITI was computed as the duration between successive taps. For each trial, position-specific ITIs were extracted at three key phases: Δ₁, Δ\u003cem\u003e₂\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003e-\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003cem\u003e₃\u003c/em\u003e, and mean C. These values were used to assess how participants adjusted their tapping interval in response to the tempo perturbation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAsynchrony was defined as the temporal difference between each tap and its corresponding metronome tone, with negative values indicating that the tap preceded the tone. To account for individual differences in baseline timing, asynchrony values were normalised by subtracting the mean pre-change asynchrony from all subsequent values, resulting in RA (Repp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, for each trial, the mean asynchrony of the five taps preceding the step change was subtracted from all subsequent asynchronies. RA was analysed across the same three functional phases: Δ\u003cem\u003e₁\u003c/em\u003e, mean Δ\u003cem\u003e₂\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003e-\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003cem\u003e₃\u003c/em\u003e, and mean C.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePCR was computed to quantify participants\u0026rsquo; immediate sensorimotor adjustment to a tempo perturbation. For each trial, the PCR was calculated as the difference in asynchrony between the tap immediately following the step change (Δ\u003cem\u003e₂\u003c/em\u003e) and the tap coinciding with the step change onset (Δ\u003cem\u003e₁\u003c/em\u003e). This measure reflects the rapid compensatory adjustment in timing triggered by the perceived phase shift (Repp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn previous work, extra taps were frequently observed, particularly in conditions involving large positive phase shifts (e.g., +\u0026thinsp;50% of the baseline IOI; Repp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). However, extra taps are also known to occur in standard 1:1 stimulus\u0026ndash;response mappings without tempo perturbations. In the present study, extra taps were rare and limited to five instances from a single participant. Therefore, these responses were excluded from all analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;Figure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e about here\u0026gt;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.5. Statistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 26.0). Separate analyses were performed for Experiment 1 (small step change; Δ\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e) and Experiment 2 (large step change; Δ\u003cem\u003eT\u003c/em\u003e), reflecting anticipated differences in perceptual and behavioural responses to subtle versus salient tempo perturbations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor both experiments, the dependent variables (ITI, RA, and PCR) were analysed at three temporal positions (Δ\u003cem\u003e₁\u003c/em\u003e, Δ\u003cem\u003e₂\u0026ndash;₃\u003c/em\u003e, mean C), each reflecting a distinct phase of adaptation. For each position, two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine the effects of experimental conditions. In Experiment 1, the between-subject factors were group (expert and novice) and step change perception (perceived, not perceived). Separate ANOVAs were conducted for the \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;10 ms and +\u0026thinsp;10 ms conditions to account for directional differences in adaptation to tempo acceleration and deceleration. In Experiment 2, the between-subject factors were group and step change magnitude (50, 100, and 150 ms). Analyses were conducted separately for acceleration and deceleration conditions, using the same dependent variables and temporal positions as in Experiment 1. PCR, calculated as the difference in asynchrony between Δ\u003cem\u003e₂\u003c/em\u003e and Δ\u003cem\u003e₁\u003c/em\u003e within each trial, was analysed independently for each condition using the same between-subject factors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significance level of α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05 was applied for all analyses. Where significant main effects or interactions were identified, Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc comparisons were performed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1. Experiment 1: Sensorimotor adaptation to small step changes (\u0026plusmn;Δt)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;Δ\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e condition, experts detected the step change in 12 out of 50 trials (24%), while novices detected it in 10 out of 50 trials (20%). In the\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Δ\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e condition, experts detected the change in 12 trials (24%), whereas novices detected it in 9 trials (18%). Conversely, the number of trials in which the step change was not perceived was 38 (76%) for experts and 40 (80%) for novices in the\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;Δ\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e condition, and 38 (76%) for experts and 41 (82%) for novices in the\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Δt condition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1.1. ITI: \u0026minus;Δt condition\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt position Δ\u003cem\u003et₁\u003c/em\u003e, no significant main effects or interactions were observed\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt positions Δ\u003cem\u003et₂\u0026ndash;₃\u003c/em\u003e, a significant main effect of step change detection was observed, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 102)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.317, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .123. Participants who detected the step change produced ITIs (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;481.17 ms), deviating from the target ITI of 490 ms in the negative direction, whereas those who did not detect the change produced ITIs (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;498.06 ms), deviating from the target in the positive direction. Both groups failed to achieve the target ITI, but their responses diverged in opposite directions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt mean C, a significant main effect of detection was again observed, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 102)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.207, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.043, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .040. Participants who detected the step change produced ITIs (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;489.48 ms) that were closer to the target ITI of 490 ms, whereas the not detected group produced ITIs that deviated further from the target (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;495.34 ms). Thus, although both groups did not fully achieve the target, the detected group maintained ITIs more closely aligned with the required interval during the period correction phase. No significant main effect of group or interaction was found.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;Figure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e about here\u0026gt;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1.2. ITI: +Δt condition\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt Δ\u003cem\u003et₁\u003c/em\u003e, a significant interaction between group and step change detection was found, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 102)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.428, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.005, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .076. In the detected condition, experts produced ITIs (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;531.43 ms) that were further from the new target ITI of 510 ms, reflecting an overshoot, whereas novices produced ITIs (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;496.47 ms) that remained closer to the baseline ITI of 500 ms, indicating limited adjustment to the step change. In the not detected condition, the ITIs were more similar between groups (experts: \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;512.27 ms, novices: \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;509.74 ms), with both groups producing ITIs closer to the target interval of 510 ms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt Δ\u003cem\u003et₂\u0026ndash;₃\u003c/em\u003e, a significant interaction was also found, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 102)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.839, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .104. In the detected condition, novices (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;524.12 ms) deviated further from the target ITI of 510 ms, while experts (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;500.00 ms) maintained ITIs close to the baseline rather than adjusting toward the target. In contrast, the not detected condition for both experts and novices (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;510.91 ms) maintained ITIs nearly identical to the new target, reflecting the most precise adaptation among all subgroups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt mean C, a significant main effect of step change detection was observed, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 102)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.851, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.004, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .080. The mean ITI was 518.95 ms in the detected group and 511.73 ms in the not detected group, with the not detected group maintaining ITIs closer to the target value of 510 ms. No significant interaction was found.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;Figure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e about here\u0026gt;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1.3. RA: \u0026minus;Δt condition\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt position Δ\u003cem\u003et₁\u003c/em\u003e, a significant interaction between group and detection was found, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 112)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.924, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.028, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .042. In the detected condition, novices showed more negative RA (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;46.33 ms) than experts (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;11.00 ms), whereas in the not detected condition, both groups showed relatively similar values (experts: \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;16.59 ms, novices: \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;10.87 ms).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt positions Δ\u003cem\u003et₂\u0026ndash;₃\u003c/em\u003e, a significant interaction between group and detection was also found, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 112)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.214, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.042, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .036. In the detected condition, novices showed greater negative RA (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;48.33 ms) than experts (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;21.00 ms), while group differences were not significant in the not detected condition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt mean C, a significant main effect of group was observed, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 112)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21.566, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .161, with non-dancers showing greater negative RA (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;45.25 ms) than dancers (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;10.39 ms). Although no significant main effect of step change detection was observed, a significant interaction between group and detection was found, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 112)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.556, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.012, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .055. In the detected condition, experts showed markedly smaller negative RA (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.16 ms) than novices (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;54.24 ms). Under the not detected condition, experts also showed smaller negative RA (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;20.62 ms) than novices (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;36.26 ms).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;Figure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e about here\u0026gt;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1.4. RA: +Δt condition\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt Δ\u003cem\u003et₁\u003c/em\u003e and Δ\u003cem\u003et₂\u0026ndash;₃\u003c/em\u003e, no significant main effects or interactions were observed, indicating similar asynchrony patterns regardless of group or detection status in the initial adaptation phases.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt mean C, significant main effects of group, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 96)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.431, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.013, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .063, and detection, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 96)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.269, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.024, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .052, were found, along with a significant interaction effect, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 96)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.289, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.041, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .043. Experts showed smaller negative RA values (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;19.73 ms) than novices (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;45.49 ms), and participants who did not detect the step change showed smaller negative RA (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;20.95 ms) than those who did (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;44.27 ms). The interaction reflected a more pronounced group difference in the detected condition (experts: \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;20.87 ms, novices: \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;67.67 ms) than in the not detected condition (experts: \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;18.59 ms, novices: \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;23.32 ms).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;Figure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e about here\u0026gt;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1.5. PCR: \u0026minus;Δt condition\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere were no significant main effects of group or step change detection, and no significant interaction was observed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1.6. PCR: +Δt condition\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significant main effect of group was observed, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 102)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.503, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .093. Both experts (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.35 ms) and novices (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;8.13 ms) exhibited mean PCR values close to zero, indicating overall accurate phase correction. However, the directionality differed: experts tended to under-correct, responding slightly faster than the new tempo, whereas novices showed a slight overshoot, responding more slowly than the target tempo. No significant main effect of detection or interaction was found. However, a significant interaction between group and detection was observed, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 102)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.553, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.012, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .060. In the detected condition, experts demonstrated mean PCR values that were closer to zero (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.29 ms) compared to novices (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;18.00 ms), indicating that experts\u0026rsquo; phase corrections were more precisely aligned with the target tempo following detection of the step change. In the not detected condition, both experts (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.41 ms) and novices (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.74 ms) exhibited PCR values close to zero, indicating that neither group made substantial phase corrections.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2. Experiment 2: Sensorimotor adaptation to large step changes (\u0026plusmn;ΔT)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.1. ITI: \u0026minus;ΔT condition\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt position Δ\u003cem\u003eT₁\u003c/em\u003e, a significant main effect of step-change magnitude was observed, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.928, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .084. No significant main effect of group or interaction between group and magnitude was found.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt positions Δ\u003cem\u003eT₂\u0026ndash;₃\u003c/em\u003e, both a significant main effect of step-change magnitude, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;252.144, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .641, and a significant main effect of group, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.171, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .045, were observed. A significant interaction between group and step-change magnitude also emerged, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18.639, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .117. Bonferroni-adjusted comparisons revealed that, in the 100 ms condition, novices produced ITIs (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;415.10 ms) closer to the new target (400 ms) than experts (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;353.33 ms).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt mean C, a similar pattern was observed. A strong main effect of step-change magnitude was found, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1064.656, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .883. No significant main effect of group was observed, but the interaction between group and step-change magnitude was significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.514, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.004, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .038. In the 100 ms condition, both groups produced mean ITIs close to the target ITI of 400 ms, with experts (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;396.31 ms) being slightly but significantly closer than novices (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;404.52 ms), \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.018. In the 150 ms condition, both groups produced mean ITIs shorter than the target ITI of 400 ms, but experts (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;345.39 ms) were significantly closer to the target ITI than novices (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;337.50 ms), \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.023.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.2. ITI: +ΔT condition\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt position Δ\u003cem\u003eT₁\u003c/em\u003e, a significant main effect of step-change magnitude was observed, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;40.850, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .225. No significant main effect of group or interaction between group and magnitude was found.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt positions Δ\u003cem\u003eT₂\u0026ndash;₃\u003c/em\u003e, a significant main effect of step-change magnitude was found, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;293.724, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .676. No significant main effect of group or interaction was observed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt mean C, the continuation phase, the main effect of tempo-change magnitude remained highly significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2145.374, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .938. Neither the main effect of group nor the interaction between group and magnitude was significant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;Figure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e about here\u0026gt;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.3. RA: \u0026minus;ΔT condition\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt position Δ\u003cem\u003eT₁\u003c/em\u003e, significant main effects of group, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.58, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.006, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .026, and step-change magnitude, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.79, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .065, and their interaction, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.018, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .028, were observed. In the 100 ms condition, experts showed significantly smaller mean RA (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = -22.33 ms) than novices (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = -64.58 ms), \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001. No significant differences were found between groups at the 50 ms and 150 ms conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt positions Δ\u003cem\u003eT₂\u0026ndash;₃\u003c/em\u003e, both the main effect of group, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17.16, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .057, and ste[-change magnitude, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;30.55, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .178, as well as the interaction, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.342, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.005, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .037, were significant. In the 100 ms condition, experts again showed significantly less negative RA (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = -112.85 ms) than novices (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = -193.96 ms), \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, and in the 150 ms condition, experts also showed smaller negative RA (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = -58.59 ms) than novices (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = -114.10 ms), \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt mean C, there was a significant main effect of group, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;43.479, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .134, a significant main effect of step-change magnitude, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;32.969, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .190, and a significant interaction, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26.822, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .160. Bonferroni-adjusted comparisons revealed that, in the 100 ms condition, experts had a mean RA close to zero (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.38 ms) while novices had a much larger negative RA (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = -179.17 ms), \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001; there were no significant group differences at 50 ms or 150 ms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.4. RA: +ΔT condition\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt position Δ\u003cem\u003eT₁\u003c/em\u003e, there were no significant main effects of group or step-change magnitude, nor any significant interaction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt positions Δ\u003cem\u003eT₂\u0026ndash;₃\u003c/em\u003e, a significant main effect of group was observed, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.306, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.007, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .025. Experts showed significantly lower RA (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.21 ms) than novices (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28.59 ms). There was also a significant main effect of step-change magnitude, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.362, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .098, and a significant interaction between group and step-change magnitude, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.499, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.005, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .038. In the 150 ms condition, experts showed significantly lower mean RA (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17.67 ms) than novices (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;88.38 ms), \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt mean C, only the main effect of step-change magnitude reached significance, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.417, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .056. No significant group or interaction effects were found.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;Figure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e about here\u0026gt;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.5. PCR: \u0026minus;ΔT condition\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significant main effect of step-change magnitude was found, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 282)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20.758, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .128. As the magnitude of the step change increased, PCR values became more negative, indicating larger phase corrections in both groups. Specifically, the mean PCR was \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;43.79 ms in the 50 ms condition, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;113.44 ms in the 100 ms condition, and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;85.32 ms in the 150 ms condition. However, there was no significant main effect of group and no significant interaction between group and step-change magnitude, suggesting that experts and novices showed similar patterns of phase correction across all step-change magnitudes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescriptively, experts showed mean PCRs of \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;47.96 ms (50 ms), \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;101.46 ms (100 ms), and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;71.60 ms (150 ms), while novices showed \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;39.63 ms, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;125.42 ms, and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;99.04 ms for the respective conditions. Although novices tended to exhibit slightly more negative PCR values than experts as the step-change magnitude increased, these differences were not statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.6. PCR: +ΔT condition\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA significant main effect of step-change magnitude was observed, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 273)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;151.167, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = .525. As the step-change magnitude increased, PCR values became more positive, indicating a larger phase correction response in both groups. The mean PCR was 15.58 ms in the 50 ms condition, 15.55 ms in the 100 ms condition, and 137.85 ms in the 150 ms condition. Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparisons revealed that the PCR in the 150 ms condition was significantly greater than in both the 50 ms and 100 ms conditions, whereas there was no significant difference between the 50 ms and 100 ms conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere was no significant main effect of group and no significant interaction between group and step-change magnitude, indicating that experts and novices exhibited similar patterns of phase correction across all step-change magnitudes. Descriptively, experts showed mean PCRs of 14.08 ms (50 ms), 8.96 ms (100 ms), and 136.38 ms (150 ms), while novices showed 17.08 ms, 22.14 ms, and 139.33 ms, respectively. These values demonstrate parallel trends between groups, with no statistically significant differences at any step-change magnitude.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1. Experiment 1: Sensorimotor adaptation to small step changes (\u0026plusmn;Δt)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnder the\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;Δ\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e condition, participants who detected the tempo acceleration produced ITIs that were closer to the new target value in both the early (Δ\u003cem\u003et₂\u0026ndash;₃\u003c/em\u003e) and continued (mean C) positions. This pattern may be attributed to greater sensitivity to temporal deviation, which enabled more successful period correction in response to the step change in tempo (Repp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005a\u003c/span\u003e; Mates, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). These findings support the notion of perception\u0026ndash;action coupling framwork, in which awareness of temporal perturbations supports responsive motor adjustment (Repp \u0026amp; Keller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Maes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, group differences were more clearly reflected in RA, which represent phase correction. Across all positions, dancers showed significantly smaller negative RA values than non-dancers, particularly in the detected condition. This may reflect sensorimotor expertise acquired through dance training, as dancers are known to develop superior internal timing representations and more efficient error-monitoring strategies (Bl\u0026auml;sing et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Karpati et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Tierney \u0026amp; Kraus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). PCR showed no significant effects, suggesting that adaptation under small perturbations relied more on sustained timing adjustment than on immediate phase resetting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnder the\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Δ\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e condition, significant interactions between group and detection were observed in ITI at both the perturbation response (Δ\u003cem\u003et₁\u003c/em\u003e) and early adaptation (Δ\u003cem\u003et₂\u0026ndash;₃\u003c/em\u003e) positions. Interestingly, when the step change was not detected, both groups produced ITIs closer to the new target interval (510 ms). However, when the step change was detected, dancers initially over-adjusted, demonstrating earlier period correction compared to non-dancers. This diverges from the\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;Δt condition, where detection was associated with more successful period correction. Notably, in the\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Δt condition, the absence of perceptual detection was linked to ITIs that were closer to the new target interval, indicating smoother temporal adaptation when the step change remained outside conscious awareness. This pattern suggests that explicit detection may sometimes interfere with optimal period correction, possibly due to increased cognitive processing or voluntary adjustment strategies (Repp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005b\u003c/span\u003e; Repp \u0026amp; Su, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the directional asymmetry observed, where\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Δ\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e elicited stronger adjustment without detection, unlike\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;Δ\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e, may reflect inherent differences in how the brain processes tempo acceleration versus deceleration. Neuroimaging studies have shown distinct neural engagement depending on tempo direction: during acceleration, networks including the prefrontal cortex and precuneus are more active, whereas deceleration engages cerebellar and superior temporal regions more heavily(Adhikari et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Schulze et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Schwartze et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). This suggests that acceleration and deceleration may rely on partially distinct neural pathways, potentially leading to asymmetric automatic correction efficiency. In RA, both group and detection effects were observed at the continued position (mean C). The smaller negative RA values observed in the dancer group are consistent with earlier findings showing that individuals with extensive sensorimotor training tend to produce more accurate anticipatory timing under continuous rhythmic demands (Bl\u0026auml;sing et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Karpati et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Tierney \u0026amp; Kraus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the lower negative RA in the not-detected group suggests that implicit timing processes can maintain synchronisation when tempo changes remain below perceptual threshold (Schwartze et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Thaut et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, PCR analysis revealed a significant interaction between group and detection. While experts tended to show positive PCR values and novices negative values in the detected condition, this pattern suggests opposite correction tendencies between groups following detection. However, given the small magnitude of the step change, these differences likely reflect general variation in temporal responsiveness rather than fundamentally distinct corrective mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2. Experiment 2: Sensorimotor adaptation to large step changes (\u0026plusmn;ΔT)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnder the\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;Δ\u003cem\u003eT\u003c/em\u003e condition, As the magnitude of the tempo increase became larger (i.e., as the step size increased from 50 ms to 150 ms), participants produced progressively shorter ITIs, indicating adaptation to faster tempi. This pattern suggests that participants effectively engaged period correction mechanisms to adjust their tapping intervals in response to increasingly rapid tempo accelerations. At the early (Δ\u003cem\u003eT₂\u0026ndash;₃\u003c/em\u003e) and continuation (mean C) positions, experts produced ITIs that were closer to the new target interval than those of novices in the 100 ms condition. This performance advantage was not observed at the 150 ms condition, suggesting that the benefit of dance expertise in period correction may be most evident when the tempo change remains within a range that supports accurate internal adjustment (Repp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005b\u003c/span\u003e; Schulze et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). However, group differences remained robust in RA across all positions, including 150 ms. Experts consistently exhibited smaller negative RA than novices, indicating more precise phase correction even under more challenging perturbations. This pattern suggests that while expertise-related advantages in recalibrating interval duration may diminish under large step changes, stability in phase correction is more resilient, consistent with previous findings on internal timing robustness in skilled performers (Bl\u0026auml;sing et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Repp \u0026amp; Su, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). PCR values tended to be more negative for novices than for dancers, but the difference was not statistically significant. This suggests that both groups employed comparable levels of immediate phase resetting in response to the step change. Collectively, these findings indicate that adaptation to large tempo accelerations (\u0026minus;Δ\u003cem\u003eT\u003c/em\u003e) engaged both period and phase correction processes. Expertise-related advantages in synchronisation accuracy, evident in more precise ITIs and smaller negative RA values, were most apparent at moderate perturbation sizes (100 ms), but tended to diminish as the step change became more extreme.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Under the\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ΔT condition, participants systematically increased their tapping intervals as the step-change magnitude grew, as evidenced by progressively longer ITIs across all positions. This pattern is consistent with previous findings that large tempo decelerations primarily recruit period correction mechanisms, enabling individuals to recalibrate their internal timing in response to marked rhythmic perturbations (Repp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005b\u003c/span\u003e; Schulze et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). No significant group differences or interactions were observed in ITI at any position, supporting the notion that, when faced with substantial tempo changes, both experts and novices employ broadly similar adjustment strategies regardless of sensorimotor expertise (Repp \u0026amp; Su, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Karpati et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). For RA, a significant group difference emerged only at the early adaptation positions (Δ\u003cem\u003eT₂\u0026ndash;₃\u003c/em\u003e), where experts showed lower RA values than novices, indicating slightly more precise phase timing in experts at this stage. This transient advantage is in line with research showing that sensorimotor expertise can facilitate initial error correction and temporal prediction during abrupt tempo changes (Tierney \u0026amp; Kraus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Bl\u0026auml;sing et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). However, the absence of group or interaction effects in the continuation phase (mean C) suggests that this benefit is not sustained. This may reflect the rapid and automatic nature of phase correction, allowing both groups to achieve synchronisation after initial adjustment (Repp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005b\u003c/span\u003e). PCR analysis revealed that as the magnitude of the step change increased, both groups exhibited progressively larger positive PCR values, reflecting greater phase correction in response to larger perturbations. The absence of significant differences in PCR between experts and novices across all magnitudes suggests that immediate phase resetting is governed by general sensorimotor mechanisms rather than by specialised training (Repp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005a\u003c/span\u003e; Repp \u0026amp; Su, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). These results extend previous research by highlighting the limited scope of expertise-related benefits when facing large rhythmic changes, and underscore the robustness and universality of adaptive timing processes across individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite these insights, several limitations should be acknowledged. The relatively small and homogeneous sample restricts the generalisability of the findings, and the use of simple tapping tasks with auditory cues may not fully capture the complexity of real-world rhythmic behaviour. Future research should address these issues by including more diverse participant groups and adopting ecologically valid movement tasks. In addition, further studies are needed to clarify the neural and cognitive mechanisms underlying implicit adaptation, and to determine whether these adaptation patterns generalise to broader populations and naturalistic settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated the effects of the direction and magnitude of abrupt tempo changes, dance expertise, and perceptual awareness on sensorimotor adaptation during rhythmic synchronisation. The results showed that, for small tempo accelerations (\u0026minus;Δ\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e), perceptual detection was critical: participants who detected the step change adapted more accurately to the new tempo, demonstrating that perceptual awareness of tempo changes promotes more successful temporal adjustment. In contrast, for small tempo decelerations (+Δ\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e), participants who did not consciously detect the change exhibited the most precise adaptation, highlighting the benefit of implicit correction under these conditions. For large tempo changes (\u0026plusmn;Δ\u003cem\u003eT\u003c/em\u003e), the pattern of adaptation depended on both the size and direction of the perturbation. Expertise-related advantages were evident only at moderate levels of acceleration (-100 ms), whereas for the largest changes and for decelerations, group differences were minimal. Across all conditions, no significant group differences were found in immediate phase resetting, indicating that rapid phase correction relies on general sensorimotor mechanisms shared by all individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these findings highlight the context-dependent nature of expertise and perceptual awareness in rhythmic adaptation, and the central role of universal timing mechanisms under substantial tempo changes. These insights may inform the development of training and intervention programmes in music, dance, and sports, and contribute to strategies supporting sensorimotor adaptation in older adults and clinical populations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eDeclaration of competing interest\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education\u0026nbsp;(NRF - 2022R1A6A3A01086887).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstitutional Review Board Statement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University (IRB No. 2104/004-027).\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdhikari, B. M., Quinn, K. M., \u0026amp; Dhamala, M. (2013). Is the brain\u0026apos;s inertia for motor movements different for acceleration and deceleration?. PloS one, 8(10), e78055.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBl\u0026auml;sing, B., Calvo-Merino, B., Cross, E. S., Jola, C., Honisch, J., \u0026amp; Stevens, C. J. (2012). Neurocognitive control in dance perception and performance. Acta Psychologica, 139(2), 300\u0026ndash;308. \u003c/strong\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBlecher, T., Tal, I., \u0026amp; Ben-Shachar, M. (2016). White matter microstructural properties correlate with sensorimotor synchronization abilities. NeuroImage, 138, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.013\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBrown, S., Martinez, M. J., \u0026amp; Parsons, L. M. (2006). \u003c/strong\u003eThe neural basis of human dance. \u003cem\u003eCerebral Cortex, 16\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1157\u0026ndash;1167. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhj057\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCannon, J., \u0026amp; Patel, A. D. (2021). How beat perception co-opts motor neurophysiology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(2), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.11.002\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFaul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., \u0026amp; Buchner, A.\u003c/strong\u003e (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Research Methods, 39\u003c/em\u003e(2), 175\u0026ndash;191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrahn, J. A. (2012). Neural mechanisms of rhythm perception: current findings and future perspectives. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 585-606. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01213.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrahn, J. A., \u0026amp; Brett, M. (2007). Rhythm and beat perception in motor areas of the brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(5), 893\u0026ndash;906. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.5.893\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarpati, F. J., Giacosa, C., Foster, N. E., Penhune, V. B., \u0026amp; Hyde, K. L. (2016). Sensorimotor integration is enhanced in dancers and musicians. Experimental Brain Research, 234, 893-903.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarpati, F. J., Giacosa, C., Foster, N. E. V., Penhune, V. B., \u0026amp; Hyde, K. L. (2017). Dance and music share gray matter structural correlates. \u003cem\u003eBrain Research, 1657\u003c/em\u003e, 62\u0026ndash;73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2016.11.016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLoehr, J. D., Large, E. W., \u0026amp; Palmer, C. (2011). Temporal coordination and adaptation to rate change in music performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(4), 1292\u0026ndash;1309. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023092\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaes, P. J., Leman, M., Palmer, C., \u0026amp; Wanderley, M. M. (2014). Action-based effects on music perception. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology, 4\u003c/em\u003e, 1008. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.01008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMates, J. (1994). A model of synchronization of motor acts to a stimulus sequence: I. Timing and error correction. \u003cem\u003eBiological Cybernetics, 70\u003c/em\u003e(5), 463\u0026ndash;473. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00203239\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiura, A., Kudo, K., Ohtsuki, T., \u0026amp; Kanehisa, H. (2016). Finger-to-beat coordination skill of non-dancers, street dancers, and the general public: Skill-dependent modulation of visual information use in a dance observation task. Attention, Perception, \u0026amp; Psychophysics, 78(4), 1045\u0026ndash;1058. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1063-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNam, S. M., Park, J. W., Ko, J. H., \u0026amp; Kim, M. J. (2024). The difference between expert dancers\u0026rsquo; and non-dancers tapping timing with and without an auditory stimulus at a slow tempo. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 131(4), 1398\u0026ndash;1414. https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125241243252\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen, T., Sidhu, R. K., Everling, J. C., Wickett, M. C., Gibbings, A., \u0026amp; Grahn, J. A. (2022). Beat perception and production in musicians and dancers. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 39(3), 229\u0026ndash;248. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2022.39.3.229\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePraamstra, P., Turgeon, M., Hesse, C. W., Wing, A. M., \u0026amp; Perryer, L. (2003). Neurophysiological correlates of error correction in sensorimotor-synchronization. Neuroimage, 20(2), 1283-1297. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00398-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThaut, M. H., Miller, R. A., \u0026amp; Schauer, L. M. (1998). Multiple synchronization strategies in rhythmic sensorimotor tasks: phase vs period correction. Biological cybernetics, 79(3), 241-250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004220050472\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTierney, A., \u0026amp; Kraus, N. (2013). The ability to move to a beat is linked to the consistency of neural responses to sound. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(38), 14981\u0026ndash;14988. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0612-13.2013\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRepp, B. H. (2001). Processes underlying adaptation to step changes in sensorimotor synchronization. Human Movement Science, 20(3), 277\u0026ndash;312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9457(01)00049-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRepp, B. H. (2005a). Sensorimotor synchronization: A review of the tapping literature. \u003cem\u003ePsychonomic Bulletin \u0026amp; Review, 12\u003c/em\u003e(6), 969\u0026ndash;992. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206433\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRepp, B. H. (2005b). Sensorimotor synchronization and perception of timing: Effects of music training and task experience. Human Movement Science, 24(5\u0026ndash;6), 893\u0026ndash;909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2005.10.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRepp, B. H. (2010). Sensorimotor synchronization and perception of timing: Effects of music training and task experience. Human Movement Science, 29(2), 200\u0026ndash;213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2009.08.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRepp, B. H. (2011). Tapping in synchrony with a perturbed metronome: The phase correction response to small and large phase shifts as a function of tempo. Journal of Motor Behavior, 43(3), 213-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2011.557404\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRepp, B. H., \u0026amp; Keller, P. E. (2004). Adaptation to step changes in sensorimotor synchronization: Effects of intention, attention, and awareness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57(3), 499\u0026ndash;521. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000369\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRepp, B. H., \u0026amp; Penel, A. (2002). Auditory dominance in temporal processing: New evidence from synchronization with simultaneous visual and auditory sequences. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1085\u0026ndash;1099. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.28.5.1085\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRepp, B. H., \u0026amp; Su, Y.-H. (2013). Sensorimotor synchronization: A review of recent research (2006\u0026ndash;2012). Psychonomic Bulletin \u0026amp; Review, 20(3), 403\u0026ndash;452. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0371-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRimmele, J. M., Morillon, B., Poeppel, D., \u0026amp; Arnal, L. H. (2018). Proactive sensing of periodic and aperiodic auditory patterns. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(10), 870-882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.07.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScheurich, R., Pfordresher, P. Q., \u0026amp; Palmer, C. (2020). Musical training enhances temporal adaptation of auditory-motor synchronization. \u003cem\u003eExperimental Brain Research, 238\u003c/em\u003e(1), 81\u0026ndash;92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-019-05716-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchulze, H. H., Cordes, A., \u0026amp; Vorberg, D. (2005). Keeping synchrony while tempo changes: Accelerando and ritardando. Music Perception, 22(3), 461-477.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwartze, M., Keller, P. E., Patel, A. D., \u0026amp; Kotz, S. A. (2011). The impact of basal ganglia lesions on sensorimotor synchronization, spontaneous motor tempo, and the detection of tempo changes. Behavioural brain research, 216(2), 685-691.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStephan, K. M., Thaut, M. H., Wunderlich, G., Schicks, W., Tian, B., Tellmann, L., ... \u0026amp; H\u0026ouml;mberg, V. (2002). Conscious and subconscious sensorimotor synchronization\u0026mdash;prefrontal cortex and the influence of awareness. Neuroimage, 15(2), 345-352. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0982\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaylor, J. A., Krakauer, J. W., \u0026amp; Ivry, R. B. (2014). Explicit and implicit contributions to learning in a sensorimotor adaptation task. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(8), 3023-3032. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3619-13.2014\u003c/li\u003e\n\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"sensorimotor adaptation, rhythmic synchronisation, tempo change, expertise, perceptual awareness","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7194374/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7194374/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined how the direction and magnitude of abrupt tempo changes, as well as dance expertise and perceptual awareness, affect sensorimotor adaptation during rhythmic synchronisation. Thirty-two adults (16 experts and 16 novices) performed synchronisation finger tapping tasks involving both small (\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10 ms; acceleration and deceleration) and large (\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;50, \u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;100, and \u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;150 ms) step changes in metronome tempo, with a baseline inter-tap interval of 500 ms. Perceptual detection of each tempo change was recorded. Adaptation was assessed using inter-tap interval (ITI), relative asynchrony (RA), and phase correction response (PCR) at specific positions following each perturbation. Separate analyses were conducted for tempo acceleration and deceleration conditions. For small accelerations, participants who detected the tempo change adjusted their ITIs closer to the target value, indicating that perceptual awareness supported more effective adaptation. In contrast, for small decelerations, the closest alignment with the target interval was observed in the absence of conscious detection, highlighting the benefit of implicit correction. With larger tempo changes, expertise-related advantages were apparent only for the \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;100 ms condition, and were minimal or absent for the \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;150 ms and all deceleration conditions. Across all conditions, no significant group differences were found in immediate phase resetting, suggesting that rapid phase correction relies on general sensorimotor mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Distinct roles of expertise and perceptual awareness in sensorimotor adaptation to abrupt tempo changes","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-01 10:49:11","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7194374/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9b9bfa22-9c3d-43e8-80e7-24d57e1dbf98","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 1st, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-13T00:38:08+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-01 10:49:11","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7194374","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7194374","identity":"rs-7194374","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}