10/ Personalized rhythm interventions could improve outcomes in rehab and training. Understanding the individual is just as important as choosing the right stimulus.

Full paper is openly available here: www.frontiersin.org/articles/10....

This post was co-created with ChatGPT-4o

9/ So if we’re designing rhythm-based interventions, we need to go beyond the beat. The effectiveness of rhythm depends on who’s listening and moving, not just the sound itself.

8/ Surprisingly, the type of rhythm (music vs. metronome) didn’t affect performance much. The real driver was the person: their motor control, attention, memory, and musical background.

7/ Those with prior Musical training had more consistently timed movement. Enjoyment of music predicted stronger tapping, especially under cognitive load. Your background and engagement with music matter.

6/ We found that:
- Those with better gross motor skills tapped harder.
- Those with better fine motor control tapped with less force.
- Poorer inhibition (difficulty stopping oneself) was linked to more forceful taps.

5/ Short answer is Yes. We found that individual differences predicted how consistently and forcefully people tapped, both when tapping alone and while dual tasking. That tells us these traits matter in real-world contexts.

4/ We also tested their cognitive and motor abilities: attention, memory, inhibition, motor control, and looked at their musical training and enjoyment.

Could these traits explain tapping performance?

3/ We recruited 50 healthy adults to tap their fingers in time with either a simple metronome or complex music. Both had the same steady beat. They tapped alone and while doing a working memory task (dual task).

2/ This matters: rhythmic auditory stimulation (RAS) is used in rehab for stroke, Parkinson’s, ADHD, and dementia. While it shows clinical promise, it doesn’t help everyone equally. We wanted to know why.