Musical expertise generalizes to superior temporal scaling in a Morse code tapping task.

A key feature of the brain's ability to tell time and generate complex temporal patterns is its capacity to produce similar temporal patterns at different speeds. For example, humans can tie a shoe, type, or play an instrument at different speeds or tempi-a phenomenon referred to as temporal scaling. While it is well established that training improves timing precision and accuracy, it is not known whether expertise improves temporal scaling, and if so, whether it generalizes across skill domains. We quantified temporal scaling and timing precision in musicians and non-musicians as they learned to tap a Morse code sequence. We found that non-musicians improved significantly over the course of days of training at the standard speed. In contrast, musicians exhibited a high level of temporal precision on the first day, which did not improve significantly with training. Although there was no significant difference in performance at the end of training at the standard speed, musicians were significantly better at temporal scaling-i.e., at reproducing the learned Morse code pattern at faster and slower speeds. Interestingly, both musicians and non-musicians exhibited a Weber-speed effect, where temporal precision at the same absolute time was higher when producing patterns at the faster speed. These results are the first to establish that the ability to generate the same motor patterns at different speeds improves with extensive training and generalizes to non-musical domains.

Introduction

Central to the brain’s ability to perform precise sensory and motor tasks is the capacity to execute these tasks at varying speeds [1-7]. This ability to temporally scale motor responses is critical and intrinsic to many motor behaviors, such as catching a ball, speaking, or playing a musical instrument. While the neural mechanisms underlying timing on the scale of hundreds of milliseconds to seconds continue to be debated, there is converging evidence from animal studies suggesting that some forms of timing are encoded in dynamically changing patterns of neural activity, or population clocks [4,8-13]. Importantly, experimental evidence and simulations suggest that these patterns of activity can unfold at different speeds, thus potentially accounting for the temporal scaling of motor responses [4,6,14,15].

A well-established characteristic of motor timing is that it operates in accordance with Weber’s Law, whereby the variability of a timed response is proportional to the length of the interval [16-18]. It has also been shown that temporal precision can be improved by subdividing a desired interval [19-21] or by increasing movement speed [6]. For example, the variability of a response produced at one second is smaller if it is embedded within a fast rather than a slow pattern—a phenomenon called the Weber-speed effect [6].

Numerous studies have established that the relationship between temporal variability (as measured by standard deviation) of a response and the mean time of the response—i.e., the Weber Coefficient—improves with practice [22-25]. Consistent with these observations, musicians generally exhibit superior performance in a number of temporal, sensory, and motor tasks [26-30]. What has not been investigated, however, is whether temporal scaling improves with practice. For example, once a temporal motor pattern is learned, is it the case that it can be produced accurately at different speeds, similar to increasing or decreasing the playback speed of a movie? Or, is the ability to produce a given pattern at different speeds itself learned and therefore dependent on experience?

Here, we investigated whether musicians, who are trained specifically to have timing expertise, exhibit superior temporal scaling on a nonmusical temporal pattern reproduction task [6]. Specifically, we used a Morse code production task because it is purely temporal and nonrhythmic. Additionally, we explored whether the Weber-speed effect is still present in musicians, or rather, as might be desirable for experts, whether temporal precision is constant across different speeds.

Results

We trained a group of highly experienced musicians and a group of non-musician controls on a temporal pattern reproduction task in which subjects listened to the word “time” in Morse code and attempted to reproduce a sequence of six dots and dashes as accurately as possible (Fig 1A). After each trial, they received visual feedback about the difference between the produced and target patterns, as well as a score representing the correlation between the two. Both groups repeated this task over four successive days, and on the fifth day subjects were tested on their ability to reproduce the pattern at three different speeds: the original speed (1x), as well as twice (2x) and half (0.5x) the trained speed.

Fig 1

Temporal precision in non-musician controls but not musicians improves significantly over the course of four training days.

(A) Schematic of the protocol and stimuli. (B) Sample data across four days for one musician and one control subject. The slope of the linear fit of the standard deviation versus mean tap time was defined as the Weber Coefficient. (C, D) Boxplots were plotted for all nine subjects from each group for the four training days for both normalized root-mean-square-error (NRMSE) (C) and Weber Coefficient (D).

To quantify learning we determined the Weber Coefficient across training days by plotting the standard deviation of the tap times against the mean tap times and calculating the slope of the linear regression (Fig 1B, single subject). As measured by the normalized root-mean-square-error (NRMSE), performance improved in both groups (day effect of a two-way ANOVA, F3,48 = 11.4, p < .001; no significant group or interaction effect) (Fig 1C). This improvement reflects, in part, learning of the Morse code pattern itself. Interestingly, controls showed a significant decrease in the Weber Coefficient over the four days of training (F1,3 = 7.65, p < .001), whereas musicians started with a low Weber Coefficient that did not improve over time (F1,3 = .09, p = .967) (Fig 1D). These results establish that while both groups learned the pattern over time, the musicians exhibited a floor effect for temporal precision—i.e., consistent with previous studies, their cross-trial variance was low from the outset.

Next, we asked whether there were any differences in overall performance or temporal precision between both groups on the 1x pattern on test day (Day 5). In this phase of the study, subjects were asked to produce the pattern under freeform conditions—i.e., in blocks in which they did not listen to the pattern first. To quantify the performance on test day we calculated the Weber Coefficient of the averaged tap times (Fig 2A) and NRMSE (Fig 2B). There was no significant difference between musicians and controls in their ability to produce the learned pattern at 1x speed, suggesting that the control group was able to reach a similar level of mastery in the task before we tested the temporal scaling capabilities of both groups.

Fig 2

Performance at the 1x speed on test day.

(A, B) On test day there was no significant difference between the musician and control groups for either the Weber Coefficient (A) or the NRMSE (B) at the 1x speed.

Musicians exhibit better temporal scaling

We next quantified temporal scaling–how well subjects produced the pattern at double (2x) and half speed (0.5x) on test day. Because the responses generally differed significantly from the targeted 2x and 0.5x speeds, we first quantified the actual magnitude of the speed-up or slow-down. To this end, we estimated a Scaling Factor based on the ratio of the 1x duration to the 2x and 0.5x durations. Perfect scaling would be 2 and 0.5 for the fast and slow speed conditions, respectively. There was no significant difference in the Scaling Factor between groups (F1,16 = .203, p = .66) (Fig 3A). Both musicians and controls produced the pattern at approximately the same speeds: 1.6x and 0.7x in the 2x and 0.5x conditions, respectively.

Fig 3

Superior temporal scaling in musicians.

(A) Magnitude of temporal scaling as measured by Scaling Factor, the ratio of the duration of the 1x pattern in relation to the duration of the 0.5x or 2x patterns. (B) Quality of temporal scaling as measured by Scaling Index (the correlation between the mean tap times in the 2x or 0.5x and 1x patterns). Scaling Index was significantly better in the musician group at both speeds.

Having established the absence of any differences in the speeds produced, we next quantified the quality of the temporal scaling. We defined a Scaling Index as the correlation between the mean tap times at the 2x or 0.5x speeds with the taps produced at the 1x speed—thus perfect scaling at any speed would correspond to a Scaling Index of 1. A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures on one factor revealed a significant difference between speeds (F1,16 = 8.57, p = .009) (Fig 3B), i.e., the correlation between the 2x taps and 1x taps was significantly higher than the correlation between the 0.5x taps and 1x taps. Together with the lack of an interaction effect (F1,16 = 1.91, p = .19), these findings indicate that both groups were better at scaling to faster speeds. Importantly, there was also a significant group effect (F1,16 = 11.93, p = .003). Thus, although the overall performance at the 1x condition was similar and there was no difference in the produced speeds, the musicians were significantly better at scaling the motor pattern to both faster and slower speeds. Importantly, the difference in the quality of temporal scaling cannot be attributed to the magnitude of the scaling (i.e., how fast or slow the patterns were) because there was no group difference in the speeds of the patterns in either the 2x or 0.5x condition.

The Weber-speed effect was observed in both groups

To determine whether a Weber-speed effect were present, and if the effects were similar or different in musicians and controls, we estimated the Weber Coefficient (Fig 4). A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures on one factor revealed a significant difference in speed (F1,16 = 12.585, p = .0027) and the absence of an interaction. Thus, subjects in both groups were more precise at the 2x speed—demonstrating the Weber-speed effect in both groups. There was also a significant difference between groups (F1,16 = 5.273, p = .0355), but no interaction. Finally, as shown in Fig 4C, the coefficient of variation (the per standard deviation mean tap time ratio) was significantly lower across all taps in the musician group for both the 2x (F1,160 = 9.8, p < .001) and the 0.5x (F1,160 = 9.8, p < .001). These findings provide additional support for those in Fig 3, and further establish that the temporal precision at the scaled speeds was superior in the musician group.

Fig 4

Analysis of variance at scaled times.

(A) Example of the Weber Coefficient for a musician and a control subject at the 0.5x and 2x speeds. (B) Analysis of the Weber coefficients revealed main effects of group (Musicians x Controls) and speed (0.5x versus 2x). (C) The coefficient of variation (the ratio of standard deviation and mean) across all taps was significantly lower for the musician group at both speeds.

Discussion

The ability to execute well timed movements at different speeds is a fundamental feature of motor control. Our results provide the first evidence that the ability to speed up or slow down motor patterns precisely is dependent on experience and generalizes across skill domains. Specifically, even though the temporal precision of motor patterns was equivalent in both the musician and non-musician groups at the end of training (Fig 2), the temporal precision of the musicians on a nonrhythmic temporal pattern production task was significantly better when they were asked to produce the trained pattern at faster and slower speeds (Fig 3).

Additionally, our results are consistent with previous studies demonstrating that, at baseline, musicians generally exhibit superior temporal precision and accuracy in both the sensory and motor domains [21,29-34]. For example, on the first day of training, the Weber Coefficient of the musicians was dramatically smaller (Fig 1). The neural mechanisms underlying improved temporal precision in musicians are not known, but they likely include higher-order cognitive strategies as well as unconscious motor skills. For example, musical training has been shown to promote endogenous oscillations, which may endow musicians with superior ability to track the beat and predict the timing of beat onsets [35]. Training also facilitates greater synchronization with partners across different spontaneous timing rates, with musicians showing lower variability than non-musicians due to greater engagement of error-correction strategies [36,37]. It has also been observed that covariance between fingers was highly constant across tempi in expert pianists [30]. Finally, the earlier the age at which musicians start training, the better they perform on tests of timing expertise [38].

The cognitive mechanisms underlying temporal scaling are even less understood than those underlying timing in general. However, one possible mechanism by which humans may accomplish scaling is through the synergistic recruitment of sensory and motor areas [39,40]. Auditory-motor integration, for example, is associated with the capacity to identify the temporal structure of rhythm [34]. Rhythm training also strengthens inhibitory control, potentially eliminating unnecessary actions by fine-tuning motor networks that track the temporal structure of music [24]. Furthermore, it should be stressed that the relative increase in accuracy with increased speed is distinct from the standard speed (reaction time)-accuracy trade-off, a separate phenomenon that is generally studied in reaction time tasks [41,42] in which performance decreases with speed.

At a more mechanistic level, it has been proposed that timing of complex motor patterns relies on population clocks—i.e., time-varying changes in the spatiotemporal patterns of activity that can encode time and drive motor activity [10,43]. An attractive property of the population clock model is that it can account for temporal scaling if the speed at which these patterns flow can be modulated. There is indeed evidence that, in the case of the production of simple intervals or durations, temporally scaled patterns of activity are observed as animals produce intervals of different durations [4,11,14,15]. Furthermore, there is theoretical evidence that recurrent neural networks can be trained to account for temporal scaling of complex motor patterns by changing the speed of neural patterns of activity [6].

A somewhat counterintuitive property of motor timing is that temporal precision can be improved by subdivision [20,21,44]—e.g., to produce a more precise 1 second duration, humans can subdivide the response into two intervals of 0.5 seconds. Relatedly, temporal precision is also improved by increasing motor speed [6]. This Weber-speed effect is somewhat paradoxical in that it implies that temporal precision is best when generating a temporal pattern at a fast speed, or while playing a musical piece at a fast tempo (i.e., the Weber Coefficients are smaller at fast speeds). In other words, both absolute and relative timing are significantly worse when playing a musical piece at a slow tempo. Here we asked whether training might allow musicians to overcome the Weber-speed effect, as it might be desirable to equate and maximize temporal precision at all speeds. We determined that this is not the case. In both musicians and non-musicians, the Weber Coefficients were significantly smaller in the 2x condition, and the ratios between the 2x and 0.5x conditions were similar as indicated by the absence of a significant interaction (Fig 4). These results suggest that the Weber-speed effect is an intrinsic and perhaps unavoidable consequence of the neural mechanisms underlying timing, a hypothesis that is consistent with the observation that computational models of timing that rely on the dynamics of recurrent neural networks also exhibit the Weber-speed effect [6].

Materials and methods

Recruitment of subjects

Musicians and non-musicians were recruited to participate in the study. The musician group comprised ten subjects, one of whom was excluded because of a data collection error. The musicians included seven graduate students at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music, two professional musicians who had previously earned a Master of Music degree, and one UCLA undergraduate majoring in music. They had each been playing music for an average of 14.2 years (SD = 2.97 years) and their ages ranged from 19 to 28 years old. The non-musician group included ten undergraduate students from University of San Francisco and UCLA whose ages ranged from 18 to 24 years old. Although six non-musician subjects had played music in the past, none were studying music at a university level nor actively practicing or performing. All experiments were run in accordance with the University of California Human Subjects Guidelines and were approved by UCLA’s Institutional Review Board. Participants provided written informed consent before participation and were paid $10/hour for their participation.

Protocol description

Subjects participated in the experiment for five consecutive days. During training days, subjects heard and reproduced the same pattern by tapping a keypad in 15 blocks of 15 repetitions each (Fig 1A). After each trial, they saw a visual representation of the timing of the produced and target patterns, as well as a score representing the correlation. On test day (Day 5), subjects were given one block as a warm-up, and then were asked to produce the pattern at three speeds (in randomized order): twice as fast (2x), half as fast (0.5x), and at the original speed (1x) without receiving any additional auditory stimuli. The target pattern was a series of short and long 550Hz tones, spelling the word “time” in Morse Code. When prompted by written instructions on the screen, subjects played back the pattern using a single button on a Cedrus Response Pad™, connected to a personal computer using custom Matlab code and the Psychophysics Toolbox. The target speed for the Morse Code was 10 WPM (words per minute). Every ‘dot’ was 120ms long and every ‘dash’ was 360ms long. Between each element that comprises a letter was a ‘dot-length’ pause, and between the last element of a letter and the first element of another letter was a ‘dash-length’ pause for a total duration of 2.76s. The specific sequence was dash (0-360ms) + pause (360-720ms) + dot (720-840ms) + pause (840-960ms) + dot (960-1080ms) + pause (1080-1440ms) + dash (1440-1800ms) + pause (1800-1920ms) + dash (1920-2280ms) + pause (2280-2640ms) + dot (2640-2760ms). After the reproduction, a visual representation of the target stimulus as well as the subject’s entry appeared on the screen, alongside a score reflecting the correlation between the target and reproduced pattern. Between blocks, participants were allowed to take a short break. However, during each block, participants were asked to interact with the program continuously. The stimulus generation and experimental interface were written in Matlab. Data analysis and statistics relied on custom written Matlab code.

Weber Coefficient and data analysis

The Weber Coefficient was calculated as described previously using Weber’s generalized Law [45,46], in which the relationship of mean and variance of motor responses is represented as where σ2 represents total variance, σ the tempo-independent variance, k the Weber Coefficient that approximates the square root of the conventional Weber fraction at long intervals, and T is time. Trials were excluded according to two sequential criteria: when the end time of the produced pattern was three or more times longer than the target end time (generally indicating that a subject lost track of how many taps they produced), and next when the values were more than two standard deviations from their mean. The Normalized Root Mean Squared Error was calculated by finding the square root of the means of the squared differences between produced time and target time, normalized by the time of the final target time tap offset.

16 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-20938

Musical expertise generalizes to superior temporal scaling in a Morse code tapping task

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Slayton,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. In general, both reviewers were positive about the methods and results. One reviewer felt that some additional context in the introduction, addressing the novel contribution of the current study relative to existing studies, as well as the rationale for the task/stimulus, would be helpful. Figure quality was also mentioned by both reviewers. Overall the comments seem addressable to me.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 30 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jessica Adrienne Grahn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. Thank you for including your ethics statement:

"All experiments were run in accordance with the University of California Human Subjects Guidelines and each subject gave verbal informed consent prior to participation."

Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

2.

We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The present study investigated effects of motor training of temporal scaling in musicians and non-musicians. The learning curve differed between the two groups. At the end of learning, musicians were better at reproducing the learned Morse code pattern at faster and slower speeds compared with the non-musicians. The study investigated a novel and intriguing issue in the field of motor control. However, I have several concerns particularly on the Introduction and Methods as follows.

First, the present Introduction is currently not clear for readers with respect to significance of the study. This can be largely improved by arguing the previous studies relevant to this study, which seems insufficient in the present manuscript. For example, temporal scaling has been already studied in musicians (e.g. Furuya and Soecthing 2012 J Neurophysiol), and therefore to argue them in the Introduction will make both novelty and significance of the study clearer. Similarly, neurophysiological studies such as bird songs have been also studied this issue extensively (Long and Fee 2008 Nature). Such neurophysiological studies will aid in deepening the understanding of what mechanisms can underlie the temporal scaling of sequential motor actions.

Second, it is better to provide a rationale of investigating the Morse code production task rather than piano playing, even though the latter is more naturalistic to the present participants. In general, a learning task used for sequential movements is a serial reaction time task (e.g. Karni et al. 1998 PNAS). As far as I know, the present motor task is not as frequently used as such a task, which makes me wonder a particular reason behind.

Related to this, the present Discussion can be largely improved by arguing an issue of signal-dependent noise in motor commands (Harris and Wolpert 1998 Nature) and/or Fitt's law. When moving faster, effects of this noise is increased, and vice versa. This neurophysiological mechanism will be crucial to shed light on improved temporal scaling with training.

There are some minor comments.

Abstract: page 8, line 7

What do you mean by "controls"?

Introduction: page 9 second paragraph

While the authors state "It has also been shown that temporal precision can be improved by increasing movement speed (6).", this claim contradicts with the Fitts' Law. Please explain more.

Figures are overall coarse in terms of resolution, which is better to be improved. Also I wonder if the color figures are really necessary.

Reviewer #2: Review of „Musical expertise generalizes to superior temporal scaling in a Morse code tapping task“

by Slayton, Romero-Sosa, Stone, Buonomano & Viskontas

This paper describes a highly original experimental study which contrasts the timing performance of a simple rhythmic pattern (actually the word time in Morse code) by expert musicians vs. non-musicians. Participants practiced the corresponding temporal pattern at a fixed speed in 15 blocks of 15 trials each for four days, with detailed feedback about the accuracy of each production as compared to the target pattern. On day 5, participants were to produce the trained rhythmic pattern at each of three speeds: the original one, twice, or half as fast as the trained pattern. The goal of the study was to test the hypothesis that professional musicians are superior in temporal scaling, i.e., to transfer a rhythmic temporal pattern acquired at one fixed tempo to slower and to faster tempi. The main findings are summarized by the authors as

„Although there was no significant difference in performance at the end of training at the standard speed, musicians were significantly better at temporal scaling—i.e., at reproducing the learned Morse code pattern at faster and slower speeds. (…) Both musicians and non-musicians exhibited a Weber-speed effect, where absolute temporal precision sharpened when producing patterns at the faster speed.“ Not really unexpected..

Minor comments.

Figures. The graphical quality is embarrassingly low. Here is an enlarged snapshot of task and stimuli:

Who can decode the details?

P. 3, 3rd par: „temporal variability“: as assessed by the standard deviation?

p. 4, top: Define NMRSE – not all readers will be familiar with it. Report whether you normalize by mean or by range.

p. 8, 2nd par: replace „time-independent“ by „tempo independent“.

p. 8, 2nd par: „Between each element that comprises a letter and the first element of another letter was a dot length pause, and between the last element of a letter and the first element of another letter was a dash-length pause.“ Why don’t you give just the sequence time-intervals to produce?

For figure see doc-file.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Review Slayton etal PLoS1.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Nov 2019

Our Response to Reviewers document has been attached. We are grateful to the reviewers and editor for their help.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Dec 2019

Musical expertise generalizes to superior temporal scaling in a Morse code tapping task

PONE-D-19-20938R1

Dear Dr. Slayton,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Jessica Adrienne Grahn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors revised the manuscript in a satisfactory manner, which improved readability a lot. I therefore believe the current manuscript deserves to be published as it is.

Reviewer #2: The authors have taken care of all of my comments and recommendation (most of which were minor anyway.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dirk Vorberg

18 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-20938R1

Musical expertise generalizes to superior temporal scaling in a Morse code tapping task

Dear Dr. Slayton:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Jessica Adrienne Grahn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE