Table 2.
Descriptive overview concerning applications of the auditory stimuli.
| Article | Auditory condition | Instructed to synch | The experimental condition from an auditory perspective | Provided by | Study aim | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Music | Metronome | Yes | No | Pacing frequency (tempo) | Condition | |||
| HEALTHY PARTICIPANTS (N = 167), AGE RANGE 17–77 | ||||||||
| Dickstein and Plax, 2012 | X | X | 60, 110, and 150 bpm | 3 speeds | Metronome signals by a computer | ∧ | ||
| Marmelat et al., 2014 | X | X | Co-efficient of variation of 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2% | Exp1: isochronous metronome at 4 pacing conditions | Metronome signals by a computer | ∧∧ | ||
| Fractal scaling of H0.2 H0.5, H0.6, and H0.9 | Exp2: fractal metronome at 4 fractal scaling conditions | |||||||
| Roerdink et al., 2011 | X | X | 77.5, 85, 92.5, 100, 107.5, 115, and 112.5% (of PWS) | 7 speeds | Metronome signals by a computer | ∧ | ||
| Terrier and Deriaz, 2012 | X | X | x0.7, x1.3 of PWS | 2 speeds | Electronic metronome | ∧ | ||
| Buhmann et al., 2016a | X | X | PWS | 3 conditions of music: activating, neutral and relaxing music | D-jogger* | ∧∧∧ | ||
| Leow et al., 2015 | X | X | X | +15% of PWS | 1 speed | Audacity (Free software Inc., Boston, USA) and Beatroot | ∧∧∧ | |
| Leow et al., 201428 | X | X | X | +22.5% of PWS | 2 conditions: 20 min, 3 trials each of high groove and low groove music | Audacity (Free software Inc., Boston, USA) | ∧∧∧ | |
| Mendonça et al., 201430 | X | X | X | PWS, +5, +10,−5,−10% of PWS | 5 speeds | Matlab generated script | ∧ | |
| PARTICIPANTS WITH NEUROLOGICAL DISEASES (N = 76), AGE RANGE 31–91 | ||||||||
| Cha et al., 2014 | X | X | PWS,−10%, +10%, and +20% of PWS | 4 speeds | Electronic metronome | ∧ | ||
| Pelton et al., 2010 | X | X | / | 5 100-pulse trials: each trial consisted of 20 metronome pulses without phase shift at baseline, The phase shifts were positive shifts of 20% of the inter-pulse interval, followed by 4 sections of 20 pulses with one phase shift occurring at an unpredictable time | Audible metronome pulses | ∧∧ | ||
| Thaut et al., 1999 | X | X | X | −10%, +20% of PWS | 2 speeds | Electronic metronome and MIDI | ∧ | |
| CASE-CONTROL STUDIES (N = 101) AGE RANGE 37–78; HEALTHY CONTROLS (N = 75), AGE RANGE 39–79 | ||||||||
| Roerdink et al., 2009 | X | X | PWS | 1 speed with a positive and negative shift phase of 60° | Computer-produced rhythmic acoustic pacing | ∧∧ | ||
| Hove et al., 2012 | X | X | U | 3 conditions: WalkMate**, fixed RAS tempo and silent control | Matlab generated scripts to control for tempo shifts | ∧ | ||
| Nomura et al., 2012 | X | X | U | 3 conditions: WalkMate**, fixed RAS tempo and silent control | Matlab generated scripts to control for tempo shifts | ∧ | ||
| McIntosh et al., 1997 | X | U | PWS and +10% of PWS | 2 speeds of instrumental music in Renaissance style in 2/4 m | synthesizer/sequencer | ∧∧ | ||
| Dotov et al., 2017 | X | X | X | +10% | Three variability conditions: no variation, biological variation (long range correlation), non-biological variation (random) | Music: 4 highly familiar musical marches, and amplitude modulated noise | ∧∧ | |
Exp, Experiment; PWS, preferred walking speed; U, Unknown; MIDI, Musical Instrument Digital Interface.Legend of study aims: Change in speeds affecting movement∧, Variability in stimuli affecting movement∧∧, Influence of musical characteristics on synchronization∧∧∧.