Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 90 references

Sparsity-Driven Plasticity in Multi-Task Reinforcement Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Pruning and rewiring restore learning capacity in multi-task RL agents

desk verdict The submission is an abstract about sparsification for RL plasticity glued to an unrelated sonification paper; the MTRL claims cannot be checked, so it should be desk rejected. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06871 v1 pith:TPTDA2G6 submitted 2025-08-09 cs.LG cs.AI

Aleksandar Todorov , Juan Cardenas-Cartagena , Rafael F. Cunha , Marco Zullich , Matthia Sabatelli This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords plasticitylossmulti-taskreinforcementlearningsparsificationgradualmagnitudepruningsparseevolutionarytrainingneurondormancyrepresentationalcollapsemixtureofexperts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that keeping a multi-task reinforcement learning agent's network sparse during training—by gradually pruning low-magnitude weights or periodically rewiring them—prevents the loss of adaptability that normally sets in as training progresses. It reports that these sparse agents show less neuron dormancy and less representational collapse than dense agents on multi-task RL benchmarks, and that they often match or beat explicit plasticity-preserving methods across shared-backbone, Mixture-of-Experts, and Mixture-of-Orthogonal-Experts architectures. The intended contribution is a cheap, mechanism-based intervention for a problem that usually requires special loss terms or architectural changes. The abstract asserts these results without supplying configuration details, and the submitted full text is an unrelated manuscript, so the claims should be read as claims rather than verified findings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the evolving sparse network. Instead of fixing a dense weight matrix, the agent maintains a sparse topology that is updated while learning continues: GMP ranks weights by magnitude and prunes the smallest, while SET prunes and regrows connections at random. The mechanism is that this continuous rewiring keeps features from collapsing into a shared low-dimensional representation, preserving room for new tasks. The abstract names neuron dormancy and representational collapse as the measurable indicators the method acts on.

What would settle it

Run the claimed comparison on a public MTRL benchmark with repeated seeds per condition: measure neuron dormancy, representational collapse, and final multi-task return for dense, GMP, and SET agents at matched sparsity budgets. If sparse agents do not show lower dormancy and collapse, or if their performance does not match dense baselines after tuning, the central claim is refuted. Also check whether dormancy is only reduced because pruned neurons are removed from the metric rather than reactivated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that dynamic sparsification is itself a plasticity-preserving intervention. Gradual Magnitude Pruning progressively removes the smallest-magnitude connections during training; Sparse Evolutionary Training alternates pruning with random reconnection so the sparse topology keeps changing. Both are reported to lower neuron dormancy and representational collapse—the two named indicators of plasticity loss—and these improvements are said to correlate with stronger multi-task performance, with sparse agents frequently beating dense baselines and doing as well as dedicated plasticity interventions. The result is presented as context-sensitive: the

Load-bearing premise

The claim collapses if the reported experiments were not run as described, or if neuron dormancy and representational collapse are not the actual causes of the multi-task performance differences rather than just correlated side effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sparse training can serve as a drop-in plasticity intervention, requiring no auxiliary loss terms or architectural changes, if the reported effects hold.
  • Multi-task agents trained with GMP or SET should continue to learn new tasks later in training instead of plateauing, because dormancy and collapse are reduced.
  • The context-sensitivity warning implies that practitioners should tune sparsity per architecture rather than assume one schedule works everywhere.
  • Because sparsity changes optimization dynamics, sparse agents are a candidate explanation for why some MTRL systems outperform dense ones at matched parameter counts.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct extension the authors leave implicit: the same rewiring logic could be tried in non-reinforcement continual learning, where plasticity loss also appears, using the same dormancy and collapse metrics as diagnostics.
  • If the mechanism is causal, the benefit should scale with how much later tasks differ from earlier ones; extreme task shifts should show the largest gap between sparse and dense agents. This is a testable prediction not stated in the paper.
  • The submission's full text is an unrelated manuscript about sonification, so the experimental evidence behind the abstract cannot be inspected here; the stated results should be verified against the actual experiments before relying on them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The submission, titled 'Sparsity-Driven Plasticity in Multi-Task Reinforcement Learning,' presents an abstract claiming that dynamic sparsification methods (GMP and SET) mitigate plasticity degradation—specifically neuron dormancy and representational collapse—and improve or match performance across shared-backbone, Mixture-of-Experts, and Mixture-of-Orthogonal-Experts MTRL architectures. The abstract reports comparisons against dense baselines and alternative plasticity interventions. However, the full text of the submission is an unrelated manuscript: 'Perceiving Slope and Acceleration: Evidence for Variable Tempo Sampling in Pitch-Based Sonification of Functions.' The full text contains no mention of GMP, SET, sparsity, multi-task reinforcement learning, Mixture of Experts, neuron dormancy, representational collapse, or any RL benchmark. Every load-bearing element of the abstract's claim—architectures, baselines, sparsity schedules, plasticity metrics, and performance results—is absent from the submission.

Significance. If substantiated, the abstract's claim would be significant: it would suggest that simple dynamic sparsification methods (GMP and SET) are robust, context-sensitive interventions for plasticity loss in multi-task RL, potentially offering a cheap alternative to explicit plasticity-preserving mechanisms. The abstract is appropriately hedged ('often correlate,' 'context-sensitive'), and the named methods are pre-existing, so the core question is empirical. However, the submitted full text provides no experimental or theoretical support. There are no machine-checked proofs, no reproducible code, no benchmark descriptions, no baseline configurations, and no data. The significance of the claim cannot be evaluated because the manuscript does not contain the claimed study.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full Text (all sections)] The full text is an entirely different paper: 'Perceiving Slope and Acceleration: Evidence for Variable Tempo Sampling in Pitch-Based Sonification of Functions.' It contains no mention of GMP, SET, sparsity, multi-task reinforcement learning, Mixture of Experts, neuron dormancy, or representational collapse. Consequently, the central claims in the abstract—that GMP and SET mitigate plasticity degradation and improve MTRL performance—have no supporting derivation, experimental description, or results in this submission. This is not a technical flaw in an otherwise present argument; it is the absence of the claimed argument itself.
  2. [Abstract vs. Full Text] The abstract asserts evaluation across 'shared backbone, Mixture of Experts, Mixture of Orthogonal Experts' MTRL architectures on 'standardized MTRL benchmarks,' with comparisons against dense baselines and 'a comprehensive range of alternative plasticity-inducing or regularization methods.' None of these elements appear anywhere in the submitted full text. There are no architecture definitions, benchmark names, baseline details, error bars, sparsity schedules, or hyperparameter settings. The submission therefore provides no basis for assessing the stated empirical comparisons or the robustness/context-sensitivity conclusions.
  3. [Sec. 7 (Limitations)] The manuscript's own limitation section concerns participant representation, stimulus design, sound design, and task scope for psychoacoustic sonification experiments. These limitations are irrelevant to the RL plasticity claims in the abstract. The presence of this unrelated limitations section confirms that the submitted text does not contain the study described in the abstract, rather than merely omitting some experimental details. No internal statement in the manuscript supports the abstract's claims.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Metadata] The full text header identifies the article as arXiv:2508.06872v2, whereas the submission is titled as arXiv:2508.06871. This appears to be a submission/upload mismatch and should be corrected or investigated by the editor.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found in the submitted text; however, the abstract describes an MTRL sparsification paper while the full text is an unrelated sonification study, leaving the central claims unauditable rather than circular.

full rationale

I examined the submitted manuscript for circular reasoning of the kinds enumerated in the instructions. The full text is a psychoacoustic sonification study, not the multi-task reinforcement learning study promised by the abstract. The sonification paper's claims are empirical comparisons: it introduces Variable Tempo sampling (Sec. 3.3) by a well-defined sampling rule, then measures human performance in two experiments using Bayesian hierarchical models. There is no fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction, no derivation that reduces an output equation to an input definition, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The authors' own limitations section (Sec. 7) explicitly enumerates participant, stimulus, and task-scope caveats, which supports an honest empirical rather than tautological framing. The abstract's central claims about GMP, SET, neuron dormancy, and representational collapse cannot be checked because the corresponding experimental text is absent, but that is a verifiability and integrity problem, not a circularity problem. No specific circular step can be quoted because there is no derivation chain in the submitted body that even addresses the abstract's claims. Under the hard rule that circularity must be demonstrated by quoting the paper and exhibiting the reduction, the correct finding is no significant circularity (score 0).

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is necessarily abstract-level because the submitted full text is a different paper. The stated results depend on unstated hyperparameters (sparsity schedules), on the interpretation of plasticity indicators, and on benchmark fairness. No invented entities appear in the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • Sparsity budget and pruning schedule for GMP and SET
    The abstract does not report the sparsity levels, pruning rates, or schedule hyperparameters used; these tunable choices likely drive the reported comparisons but cannot be verified from the provided text.
  • Architecture-specific hyperparameters (shared backbone, MoE, MoOE)
    The abstract compares three MTRL architectures but does not state how sparsification was configured in each; the context-sensitivity claims depend on these settings.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Neuron dormancy and representational collapse are valid indicators of the plasticity that determines multi-task performance
    The abstract's evidence chain runs from sparsification to these indicators to performance; the causal link from indicator to performance is asserted, not demonstrated, in the text available.
  • domain assumption The MTRL benchmarks and the 'comprehensive range' of alternative plasticity interventions are standard and fairly compared
    The abstract asserts comparisons against dense baselines and alternative methods on standard benchmarks, but no benchmark names, baseline configurations, or results are present in the submission to check.
  • domain assumption Gradual Magnitude Pruning and Sparse Evolutionary Training are implemented as defined in their source literature
    The abstract treats GMP and SET as known quantities without defining their instantiations; the results depend on these definitions, which are not in the submission.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sparsity-Driven Plasticity in Multi-Task Reinforcement Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TPTDA2G6

@misc{pith2026250806871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sparsity-Driven Plasticity in Multi-Task Reinforcement Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TPTDA2G6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06871}
}
read the original abstract

Plasticity loss, a diminishing capacity to adapt as training progresses, is a critical challenge in deep reinforcement learning. We examine this issue in multi-task reinforcement learning (MTRL), where higher representational flexibility is crucial for managing diverse and potentially conflicting task demands. We systematically explore how sparsification methods, particularly Gradual Magnitude Pruning (GMP) and Sparse Evolutionary Training (SET), enhance plasticity and consequently improve performance in MTRL agents. We evaluate these approaches across distinct MTRL architectures (shared backbone, Mixture of Experts, Mixture of Orthogonal Experts) on standardized MTRL benchmarks, comparing against dense baselines, and a comprehensive range of alternative plasticity-inducing or regularization methods. Our results demonstrate that both GMP and SET effectively mitigate key indicators of plasticity degradation, such as neuron dormancy and representational collapse. These plasticity improvements often correlate with enhanced multi-task performance, with sparse agents frequently outperforming dense counterparts and achieving competitive results against explicit plasticity interventions. Our findings offer insights into the interplay between plasticity, network sparsity, and MTRL designs, highlighting dynamic sparsification as a robust but context-sensitive tool for developing more adaptable MTRL systems.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Attneave and R

    F. Attneave and R. K. Olson. Pitch as a medium: A new approach to psychophysical scaling. Am. J. Psychol. , pp. 147–166, 1971. doi: 10. 2307/1421351 2

    1971

  2. [2]

    Barrass and P

    S. Barrass and P. Vickers. Chapter 7: Sonification design and aesthetics. In The Sonification Handbook , pp. 145–172. Logos Publishing House, Berlin, Germany, 2011. 2

    2011

  3. [3]

    Beck and W

    J. Beck and W. A. Shaw. The scaling of pitch by the method of magnitude- estimation. Am. J. Psychol., 74(2):242–251, 1961. doi: 10.2307/1419409 2

    work page doi:10.2307/1419409 1961

  4. [4]

    Braun, M

    R. Braun, M. Tfirn, and R. M. Ford. Listening to life: Sonification for enhancing discovery in biological research. Biotechnol. Bioeng. , 121(10):3009–3019, 2024. doi: 10.1002/bit.28729 1

    work page doi:10.1002/bit.28729 2024

  5. [5]

    A. S. Bregman. Chapter 3: Integration of simultaneous auditory compo- nents. In Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound, pp. 213–394. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/ 1486.003.0004 2

    doi:10.7551/mitpress/ 1990

  6. [6]

    L. M. Brown and S. A. Brewster. Drawing by ear: Interpreting sonified line graphs. 2003. 3, 6

    2003

  7. [7]

    Bujacz, K

    M. Bujacz, K. Kropidlowski, G. Ivanica, A. Moldoveanu, C. Saitis, A. Csapo, G. Wersenyi, S. Spagnol, O. I. Johannesson, R. Unnthors- son, M. Rotnicki, and P. Witek. Sound of vision - spatial audio output and sonification approaches. In Proc. ICCHP, vol. 9759, pp. 202–209. Springer, Cham, 2016. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-41267-2_28 2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41267-2_28 2016

  8. [8]

    P.-C. Bürkner. brms: An r package for bayesian multilevel models using stan. J. Stat. Softw., 80:1–28, 2017. doi: 10.18637/jss.v080.i01 4, 6

    doi:10.18637/jss.v080.i01 2017

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    E. M. Burns and W. D. Ward. Categorical perception—phenomenon or epiphenomenon: Evidence from experiments in the perception of melodic musical intervals. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. , 63(2):456–468, 1978. doi: 10. 1121/1.381737 8

    1978

  2. [10]

    Chafe, G

    C. Chafe, G. Wang, M. Mulshine, and J. Atherton. What would a webchuck chuck? J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 153(3), 2023. doi: 10.1121/10.0018058 3, 6

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Chundury, Y

    P. Chundury, Y . Reyazuddin, J. B. Jordan, J. Lazar, and N. Elmqvist. Tactualplot: spatializing data as sound using sensory substitution for touchscreen accessibility. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 30(1):836– 846, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3326937 9

    2023

  4. [12]

    Ciccione and S

    L. Ciccione and S. Dehaene. Can humans perform mental regression on a graph? accuracy and bias in the perception of scatterplots. Cogn. Psychol., 128:101406, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101406 1

    2021

  5. [13]

    W. S. Cleveland and R. McGill. Graphical perception: The visual decoding of quantitative information on graphical displays of data. J. R. Stat. Soc., 150(3):192–210, 1987. doi: 10.2307/2981473 1

    1987 doi

  6. [14]

    Clément, L

    S. Clément, L. Demany, and C. Semal. Memory for pitch versus memory for loudness. J. Acoust. Soc. Am, 106(5):2805–2811, November 1999. doi: 10.1121/1.428106 2

    1999 doi

  7. [15]

    Coers, A

    M. Coers, A. Palumbo, and R. S. Schaefer. Movement sonification map- pings: Liking, motivation, intuitiveness. In Proc. ICMPC. Tokyo, Japan, August 2023. 2

    2023

  8. [16]

    Dahl and S

    S. Dahl and S. Granqvist. Estimating internal drift and just noticeable difference in the perception of continuous tempo drift: A new method. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci, 999(1):161–165, 2003. doi: 10.1196/annals.1284. 020 9

    2003 doi

  9. [17]

    Dehaene, V

    S. Dehaene, V . Izard, E. Spelke, and P. Pica. Log or linear? distinct intuitions of the number scale in western and amazonian indigene cultures. science, 320(5880):1217–1220, 2008. doi: 10.1126/science.1156540 8

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    D. Deutsch. Tones and numbers: Specificity of interference in immediate memory. Science, 168(3939):1604–1605, 1970. doi: 10.1126/science.168. 3939.1604 8

    1970

  11. [19]

    W. J. Dowling and D. S. Fujitani. Contour, interval, and pitch recognition in memory for melodies. J. Acoust. Soc. Am, 49(2B):524–531, 1971. doi: 10.1121/1.1912382 2

    1971 doi

  12. [20]

    Drake and M.-C

    C. Drake and M.-C. Botte. Tempo sensitivity in auditory sequences: Evidence for a multiple-look model. Percept. Psychophys., 54:277–286,

  13. [21]

    Dubus and R

    G. Dubus and R. Bresin. A systematic review of mapping strategies for the sonification of physical quantities. PloS one, 8(12):e82491, 2013. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082491 1, 2

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    R. A. Duke, J. M. Geringer, and C. K. Madsen. Effect of tempo on pitch perception. J. Res. Music Educ. , 36(2):108–125, 1988. doi: 10. 2307/3345244 9

    1988

  15. [23]

    K. Enge, E. Elmquist, V . Caiola, N. Rönnberg, A. Rind, M. Iber, S. Lenzi, F. Lan, R. Höldrich, and W. Aigner. Open your ears and take a look: A state-of-the-art report on the integration of sonification and visualization. In Comput. Graphics Forum, vol. 43, p. e15114. Wiley O...

  16. [24]

    K. Enge, A. Rind, M. Iber, R. Höldrich, and W. Aigner. Towards multi- modal exploratory data analysis: Soniscope as a prototypical implemen- tation. In Proc. EuroVis, pp. 67–71, 2022. doi: 10.2312/evs.20221095 1

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    D. Fan, A. F. Siu, W.-S. A. Law, R. R. Zhen, S. O’Modhrain, and S. Follmer. Slide-tone and tilt-tone: 1-dof haptic techniques for con- veying shape characteristics of graphs to blind users. In Proc. CHI, pp. 1–19, 2022. doi: 10.1145/3491102.3517790 1

    2022

  18. [26]

    G. T. Fechner. Elemente der psychophysik, vol. 2. Breitkopf u. Härtel,

  19. [27]

    J. Flowers. Thirteen years of reflection on auditory graphing: Promises, pitfalls, and potential new directions. In Proc. ICAD, pp. 406–409, 01

  20. [28]

    N. E. Foster, L. Beffa, and A. Lehmann. Accuracy of tempo judgments in disk jockeys compared to musicians and untrained individuals. Front. Psychol., 12, 2021. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.709979 8

    2021

  21. [29]

    J. M. Foxton, A. C. Brown, S. Chambers, and T. D. Griffiths. Training improves acoustic pattern perception. Curr. Biol., 14(4):322–325, 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2004.02.001 8

    2004 doi

  22. [30]

    W. W. Gaver and D. A. Norman.Everyday listening and auditory icons. PhD thesis, UCSD, 1988. 1

    1988

  23. [31]

    Gelman, J

    A. Gelman, J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, and D. B. Rubin. Bayesian Data Analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2 ed., 2003. doi: 10. 1201/9780429258411 4, 6

    2003

  24. [32]

    Gelman and C

    A. Gelman and C. R. Shalizi. Philosophy and the practice of bayesian statistics. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol., 66(1):8–38, 2013. doi: 10.1111/j. 2044-8317.2011.02037.x 4, 6

    2013

  25. [33]

    Harrar and T

    L. Harrar and T. Stockman. Designing auditory graph overviews: an exam- ination of discrete vs. continuous sound and the influence of presentation speed. In Proc. ICAD, pp. 299–305, 2007. 1

    2007

  26. [34]

    Harrison, J

    C. Harrison, J. Trayford, L. Harrison, and N. Bonne. Audio universe: tour of the solar system. Astron. Geophys., 63(2):2.38–2.40, Apr. 2022. doi: 10.1093/astrogeo/atac027 1

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Hermann, A

    T. Hermann, A. Hunt, J. G. Neuhoff, et al. The sonification handbook, vol. 1. Logos Verlag Berlin, 2011. 1, 2

    2011

  28. [36]

    Hildebrandt, T

    T. Hildebrandt, T. Hermann, and S. Rinderle-Ma. Continuous sonification enhances adequacy of interactions in peripheral process monitoring. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud., 95:54–65, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.06.002 1

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    A. Inc. Audio graphs. https://developer.apple.com/ documentation/accessibility/audio-graphs, 2025. Accessed: 2025-03-30. 2

    2025

  30. [38]

    Janata and K

    P. Janata and K. Paroo. Acuity of auditory images in pitch and time. Per- cept. Psychophys., 68(5):829–844, July 2006. doi: 10.3758/BF03193705 2

    2006 doi

  31. [39]

    Kantan, S

    P. Kantan, S. Dahl, S. Serafin, and E. G. Spaich. Sonifying gait kinematics using the sound of wading: A study on ecological movement representa- tions. In Proc. ICAD. Norrköping, Sweden, 2023. doi: 10.21785/icad2023 .5049 2

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Kishon-Rabin, O

    L. Kishon-Rabin, O. Amir, Y . Vexler, and Y . Zaltz. Pitch discrimination: are professional musicians better than non-musicians? J. Basic. Clin. Physiol. Pharmacol., 12(2 Suppl):125–143, 2001. doi: 10.1515/jbcpp. 2001.12.2.125 2

    2001 doi

  33. [41]

    Kramer, B

    G. Kramer, B. Walker, T. Bonebright, P. Cook, J. H. Flowers, N. Miner, J. Neuhoff, R. Bargar, S. Barrass, J. Berger, G. Evreinov, W. T. Fitch, M. Gröhn, S. Handel, H. Kaper, H. Levkowitz, S. Lodha, B. Shinn- Cunningham, M. Simoni, and S. Tipei. The sonification report: Status ...

  34. [42]

    H. Levitt. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 49(2B):467–477, 1971. doi: 10.1121/1.1912375 5, 6

    1971 doi

  35. [43]

    Lindborg, S

    P. Lindborg, S. Lenzi, and M. Chen. Climate data sonification and visual- ization: An analysis of topics, aesthetics, and characteristics in 32 recent projects. Front. Psychol., 13:1020102, 2023. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022. 1020102 1

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    D. F. Little, H. H. Cheng, and B. A. Wright. Inducing musical-interval learning by combining task practice with periods of stimulus exposure alone. Atten. Percept. Psychophys., 81:344–357, 2019. doi: 10.3758/ s13414-018-1584-x 8

    2019

  37. [45]

    J. M. Loomis, R. L. Klatzky, J. W. Philbeck, and R. G. Golledge. Assessing auditory distance perception using perceptually directed action. Percept. Psychophys., 60:966–980, 1998. doi: 10.3758/BF03211932 3, 6

    1998 doi

  38. [46]

    G. Madison. Detection of linear temporal drift in sound sequences: Empir- ical data and modelling principles. Acta Psychol., 117(1):95–118, 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.05.004 9

    2004 doi

  39. [47]

    Marie, T

    C. Marie, T. Kujala, and M. Besson. Musical and linguistic expertise influence pre-attentive and attentive processing of non-speech sounds. Cortex, 48(4):447–457, 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2010.11.006 2

    2012 doi

  40. [48]

    J. G. Martin. Rhythmic (hierarchical) versus serial structure in speech and other behavior. Psychol. Rev., 79(6):487–509, 1972. doi: 10.1037/ h0033467 2

    1972

  41. [49]

    B. S. Mauney and B. N. Walker. Creating functional and livable sound- scapes for peripheral monitoring of dynamic data. In Proc. ICAD, 2004. 1

    2004

  42. [50]

    J. H. McDermott, M. V . Keebler, C. Micheyl, and A. J. Oxenham. Musical intervals and relative pitch: Frequency resolution, not interval resolution, is special. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 128(4):1943–1951, 2010. doi: 10.1121/1. 3478785 8

    1943 doi

  43. [51]

    Middleton, J

    J. Middleton, J. Hakulinen, K. Tiitinen, J. Hella, T. Keskinen, P. Huusko- nen, J. Culver, J. Linna, M. Turunen, M. Ziat, and R. Raisamo. Data-to- music sonification and user engagement. Front. Big Data, 6:1206081,

  44. [52]

    T. J. Mitchell, A. J. Jones, M. B. O’Connor, M. D. Wonnacott, D. R. Glowacki, and J. Hyde. Towards molecular musical instruments: interac- tive sonifications of 17-alanine, graphene and carbon nanotubes. In Proc. AM, 8 pages, p. 214–221. Association for Computing Machinery, Ne...

    2020

  45. [53]

    Møller, J

    C. Møller, J. Stupacher, A. Celma-Miralles, and P. Vuust. Beat per- ception in polyrhythms: Time is structured in binary units. Plos one, 16(8):e0252174, 2021. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252174 9

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    B. C. J. Moore. Chapter 3: Frequency selectivity, masking, and the critical band. In An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing, pp. 57–82. Brill, 6 ed., 2012. doi: 10.1163/9789004658820 1

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    M. A. Nees and B. N. Walker. Data density and trend reversals in auditory graphs: Effects on point-estimation and trend-identification tasks. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept., 5(3):1–24, 2008. doi: 10.1145/1402236.1402237 1

    2008

  48. [56]

    Noel-Storr and M

    J. Noel-Storr and M. Willebrands. Accessibility in astronomy for the visually impaired. Nature Astronomy, 6(11):1216–1218, 2022. doi: 10. 1038/s41550-022-01691-2 1

    2022

  49. [57]

    Parrott, E

    S. Parrott, E. Guzman-Martinez, L. Ortega, M. Grabowecky, M. D. Hunt- ington, and S. Suzuki. Spatial position influences perception of slope from graphs. Perception, 43(7):647–653, 2014. doi: 10.1068/p7758 1

    2014 doi

  50. [58]

    Parvizi, K

    J. Parvizi, K. Gururangan, B. Razavi, and C. Chafe. Detecting silent seizures by their sound. Epilepsia, 59(4):877–884, 2018. doi: 10.1111/epi .14043 1

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    J. K. Pazdera and L. J. Trainor. Pitch-induced illusory percepts of time. Atten. Percept. Psychophys., 87(2):545–564, 2025. doi: 10.3758/s13414 -024-02982-8 9

    2025 doi

  52. [60]

    Pereira, J

    F. Pereira, J. Ponte-e Sousa, R. Fartaria, V . Bonifácio, P. Mata, J. Aires-de Sousa, and A. Lobo. Sonified infrared spectra and their interpretation by blind and visually impaired students. J. Chem. Educ, 90:1028–1031, 08

  53. [61]

    Pirhonen and H

    A. Pirhonen and H. Palomäki. Sonification of directional and emotional content: Description of design challenges. In Proc. ICAD. Paris, France, June 24–27 2008. 2

    2008

  54. [62]

    Poirier-Quinot, G

    D. Poirier-Quinot, G. Parseihian, and B. F. Katz. Comparative study on the effect of parameter mapping sonification on perceived instabilities, efficiency, and accuracy in real-time interactive exploration of noisy data streams. Displays, 47:2–11, 2017. Sonification of Real-ti...

    2017

  55. [63]

    Potluri, J

    V . Potluri, J. Thompson, J. Devine, B. Lee, N. Morsi, P. De Halleux, S. Hodges, and J. Mankoff. Psst: enabling blind or visually impaired developers to author sonifications of streaming sensor data. In Proc. UIST, pp. 1–13, 2022. doi: 10.1145/3526113.3545700 1

    2022

  56. [64]

    J. M. Ross and R. Balasubramaniam. Time perception for musical rhythms: Sensorimotor perspectives on entrainment, simulation, and prediction. Front. Integr. Neurosci., 16:916220, 2022. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2022.916220 1

    2022

  57. [65]

    F. A. Russo and W. F. Thompson. The subjective size of melodic intervals over a two-octave range. Psychon. Bull. Rev., 12(6):1068–1075, 2005. doi: 10.3758/bf03206445 8

    2005 doi

  58. [66]

    Rönnberg

    N. Rönnberg. Towards interactive sonification in monitoring of dynamic processes. In Proc. ISon. Stockholm, Sweden, 2019. 2

    2019

  59. [67]

    Scaletti, M

    C. Scaletti, M. Rickard, K. Hebel, T. Pogorelov, S. Taylor, and M. Gruebele. Sonification-enhanced lattice model animations for teaching the protein folding reaction. J. Chem. Educ., 99(3):1220–1230, Mar. 2022. doi: 10. 1021/acs.jchemed.1c00857 1

    2022

  60. [68]

    Scaletti, P

    C. Scaletti, P. P. S. Russell, K. J. Hebel, M. M. Rickard, M. Boob, F. Danksagmüller, S. A. Taylor, T. V . Pogorelov, and M. Gruebele. Hydrogen bonding heterogeneity correlates with protein folding tran- sition state passage time as revealed by data sonification. PNAS, 121(22)...

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    E. G. Schellenberg and S. E. Trehub. Natural musical intervals: Evidence from infant listeners. Psychol. Sci., 7(5):272–277, 1996. doi: 10.1111/j. 1467-9280.1996.tb00373.x 2

    1996

  62. [70]

    D. S. Scholz, S. Rohde, N. Nikmaram, H.-P. Brückner, M. Großbach, J. D. Rollnik, and E. O. Altenmüller. Sonification of Arm Movements in Stroke Rehabilitation - A Novel Approach in Neurologic Music Therapy. Front. Neurol., 7:106, 2016. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2016.00106 2

    2016

  63. [71]

    what makes sonification user-friendly?

    A. Sharif, O. H. Wang, and A. T. Muongchan. “what makes sonification user-friendly?” exploring usability and user-friendliness of sonified re- sponses. In Proc. ASSETS, pp. 1–5, 2022. doi: 10.1145/3517428.3550360 1

    2022

  64. [72]

    W. Smith. Interactive musical periodic table: Sonification of visible element emission spectra. In Proc. SMC. SMC Network, Porto, Portugal,

  65. [73]

    Smith, D

    W. Smith, D. V olkov, and A. Alani. Sonifications of quantum superpo- sitions: Methods and musical applications. In Advances in Quantum Computer Music, vol. 6, pp. 1–38. World Scientific, 2024. doi: 10.1142/ 9789819800186_0001 2

    2024

  66. [74]

    S. S. Stevens, J. V olkmann, and E. B. Newman. A scale for the mea- surement of the psychological magnitude pitch. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. , 8(3):185–190, 1937. doi: 10.1121/1.1915893 2

    1937 doi

  67. [75]

    normal equal-loudness-level contours

    Y . Suzuki, H. Takeshima, and K. Kurakata. Revision of iso 226 "normal equal-loudness-level contours" from 2003 to 2023 edition: The back- ground and results. Acoust. Sci. Technol., 45(1):1–8, 2024. doi: 10.1250/ ast.e23.66 3, 6

    2003

  68. [76]

    Talbot, J

    J. Talbot, J. Gerth, and P. Hanrahan. An empirical model of slope ratio comparisons. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph, 18(12):2613–2620, 2012. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2012.196 1, 9

    2012 doi

  69. [77]

    doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13918961 1

    doi

  70. [78]

    Thompson, V

    W. Thompson, V . Peter, K. N. Olsen, and C. J. Stevens. The effect of intensity on relative pitch. Q. J. Exp. Psychol., 65(10):2054–2072, 2012. PMID: 22650967. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.678369 2

  71. [79]

    Vickers.Sonification and Music, Music and Sonification

    P. Vickers.Sonification and Music, Music and Sonification. The Routledge Companion to Sounding Art, 2016. doi: 10.4324/9781315770567 2

    2016 doi

  72. [80]

    B. N. Walker. Magnitude estimation of conceptual data dimensions for use in sonification. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl., 8(4):211–221, December 2002. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.8.4.211 1, 2

    2002 doi

  73. [81]

    B. N. Walker and M. A. Nees. Theory of sonification. The sonification handbook, 1:9–39, 2011. 1, 8

    2011

  74. [82]

    K. Thomas. Just noticeable difference and tempo change. J. Sci. Psychol, 2:14–20, 2007. 9

    2007

  75. [83]

    C. S. Watson and G. R. Kidd. Factors in the design of effective auditory displays. In Proc. ICAD, 1994. 8

    1994

  76. [84]

    Zanella, C

    A. Zanella, C. Harrison, S. Lenzi, J. Cooke, P. Damsma, and S. Fleming. Sonification and sound design for astronomy research, education and public engagement. Nat. Astron, 6(11):1241–1248, 2022. doi: 10.1038/ s41550-022-01721-z 1

    2022

  77. [85]

    Zhang, J

    Z. Zhang, J. R. Thompson, A. Shah, M. Agrawal, A. Sarikaya, J. O. Wobbrock, E. Cutrell, and B. Lee. Charta11y: Designing accessible touch experiences of visualizations with blind smartphone users. In Proc. ASSETS, pp. 1–15, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3663548.3675611 9

    2024

  78. [87]

    R. Wang, C. Jung, and Y . Kim. Seeing through sounds: Mapping auditory dimensions to data and charts for people with visual impairments. In Comput. Graphics Forum, vol. 41, pp. 71–83. Wiley Online Library, 2022. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14523 1, 3, 6

    2022 doi

  79. [1993]

    doi: 10.3758/bf03205262 8

    doi

  80. [2013]

    doi: 10.1021/ed4000124 1

    doi

  81. [2023]

    doi: 10.3389/fdata.2023.1206081 1

    2023

  82. [2024]

    doi: 10.1111/cgf.15114 1

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.