Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

A state-of-the-art online piano transcription system, Mobile-AMT, carries a hidden 10-second latency from its Squeeze-Excitation layers, and this paper builds a strictly causal replacement, Causal-AMT, that fares better at 10 ms onset toler

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A strictly causal, low-latency piano transcription system can reach 10-30 ms delays, but with a clear accuracy drop from removing lookahead and using shifted audio windows.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection A useful system paper: it catches a real 10-second latency bug in Mobile-AMT's SE layers, but its headline 10-ms robustness win rests on an undertrained reimplemented baseline. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.07586 v1 pith:67HO56G6 submitted 2025-09-09 eess.AS cs.LGcs.SD

Exploring System Adaptations For Minimum Latency Real-Time Piano Transcription

Patricia Hu , Silvan David Peter , Jan Schl\"uter , Gerhard Widmer This is my paper
classification eess.AS cs.LGcs.SD
keywords real-time piano transcriptionlatencycausal processingSqueeze-ExcitationSTFT window shiftonset detectionMAESTRO datasetbinary classification targets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 aims to show that Mobile-AMT, currently the state of the art in online piano transcription, is not truly real-time: its Squeeze-Excitation layers globally pool over 10-second audio blocks, adding a hidden ten-second latency that the original latency calculation missed. The authors rework the system into Causal-AMT, a strictly causal model with shifted asymmetric STFT windows, binary onset targets, and causal postprocessing, and show that while overall F1 drops, the causal system is more precise and robust at tight 10–30 ms onset tolerances, which is what interactive musical use needs. The value is a credible open baseline for minimum-latency transcription plus a clear map of where the accuracy losses come from: preprocessing delay, causal convolutions, and label encoding.

Core claim

At the paper's core is the claim that Mobile-AMT, the current state-of-the-art in real-time piano transcription, carries a hidden 10-second latency because its Squeeze-Excitation layers perform global average pooling over the full 10-second input block, a non-causal operation the original authors overlooked when reporting 174 ms. Starting from a reimplementation, the paper shows that making the model strictly causal—removing the SE layers, shifting the STFT window so it ends rather than centers on the prediction point (cutting preprocessing delay from 64 ms to 10 ms), using binary targets with a causal peak-picking postprocessor, and sharing acoustic-stack convolutions across targets—reduces

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the combination of (1) replacing Squeeze-Excitation layers—whose global average pooling makes the model non-causal—with strictly causal convolutions whose receptive field extends only into the past; (2) a shifted, asymmetric STFT window that keeps a 2048-sample window for frequency resolution but ends only 160 samples (10 ms) after the reference point instead of centering on it, cutting the preprocessing delay from 1024 samples (64 ms); and (3) replacing triangular regression targets with binary pointwise targets plus weighted and shift-tolerant losses, so that detection and postprocessing need no future frames. The shared acoustic stack across onset/frame/velocity t

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions rest on the assumption that training each variant for only 500 epochs, and the final comparison at 2000 epochs against a reimplemented baseline originally trained for 3000 epochs, already reveals stable and representative differences; the paper gives no convergence check to confirm the rankings would survive longer training.

What would settle it

Record the actual streaming behavior of Mobile-AMT: if it emits a usable onset prediction before receiving a full 10-second input block (for example by feeding a live stream and timing the first output), the claimed hidden 10-second latency is wrong; conversely, training Causal-AMT for the full 3000 epochs and showing it still trails Mobile-AMT at 10 ms tolerance would settle whether the robustness gain is real or an artifact of shorter training.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If Causal-AMT is taken as the baseline, researchers can now separate algorithmic latency (model causality) from engineering latency (inference speed, buffering) when designing real-time transcription systems.
  • The finding that shifting the STFT window to 30 ms delay matches centered-window performance while 10 ms hurts accuracy gives a concrete design curve for the preprocessing latency–accuracy tradeoff.
  • Removing velocity conditioning on onset prediction strongly improves onset accuracy, suggesting a simpler conditioning design for causal transcription models.
  • Sharing the acoustic stack across all targets shows near-parity, implying model size can be reduced without proportional loss, which matters for deployment on constrained hardware.
  • Evaluating at 10–30 ms tolerances rather than the standard ±50 ms better reflects interactive use, and Causal-AMT's higher precision at 10 ms indicates causal models can be better calibrated for real-time operation despite lower raw F1.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A likely next test is whether the accuracy gap closes with a longer training budget; the paper's 500-epoch screening and 2000-epoch final comparison leave open whether Causal-AMT's disadvantage is partly a training-duration artifact.
  • The hidden-latency audit generalizes beyond piano: any model using global pooling or non-causal normalization over a buffered input has latency proportional to buffer length, so the same check applies to other real-time audio ML systems.
  • A testable extension is an adaptive windowing scheme that grows the lookahead only for low pitches where the period exceeds the available samples, trading latency per note rather than globally.
  • Since the paper evaluates only algorithmic latency, measuring wall-clock throughput on edge hardware would determine whether Causal-AMT actually runs within a 10 ms frame budget end-to-end; the paper's own discussion leaves this to future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper examines how the current state-of-the-art online piano transcription system, Mobile-AMT, can be adapted for minimum-latency real-time use. It identifies a hidden 10-second latency in Mobile-AMT caused by Squeeze-and-Excitation layers that globally pool over 10-second input blocks. The paper then proposes a strictly causal variant, Causal-AMT, combining causal convolutions, removal of SE layers, shifted asymmetric STFT windows, binary targets with weighted or shift-tolerant losses, causal postprocessing, and shared acoustic stacks. Experiments on MAESTRO v3.0 evaluate these modifications separately and in a final combined comparison, reporting that the causal model is more robust at tight onset tolerances (10 ms) despite lower overall F1.

Significance. If the SE-latency observation is correct, it is an important caveat for the real-time AMT community, as it exposes a flaw in a previously reported state-of-the-art latency figure. The paper provides a broad empirical exploration of preprocessing, label encoding, postprocessing, and architectural choices, and the authors release a baseline that could support future low-latency work. The paper also clearly identifies the fundamental difficulty of predicting low piano notes from less than one period of the fundamental at 10 ms latency. However, the central empirical claim of improved tight-tolerance robustness rests on a final comparison using a reimplemented Mobile-AMT trained for only 2000 epochs rather than the original 3000-epoch model, and no convergence checks are provided. This weakens the main quantitative conclusion, although the architectural latency finding is sound.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.4, Table 4, §3.3] The central robustness claim (Causal-AMT F1=31.55 vs Mobile-AMT F1=18.26 at 10 ms) compares against a reimplementation of Mobile-AMT trained for 2000 epochs, whereas the original Mobile-AMT is trained for 3000 epochs (stated in §3.3). The justification in §4 that 'most effects become evident already during the early training stages' is not backed by learning curves or convergence checks. If the original 3000-epoch model improves at tight tolerances, the gap could shrink or reverse. Please train both models to the same budget (or use the original checkpoints) or explicitly reframe the comparison as equal-budget reimplementation results.
  2. [§4.4, Table 4] The onset threshold used in the final comparison is undisclosed. Table 1 shows that onset threshold strongly affects F1, and that the benefits of different training losses depend on the threshold. Since the central claim is robustness at 10 ms, the threshold is a free parameter that must be reported, and ideally swept or chosen by a principled criterion applied identically to both systems. Without this, the comparison is incomplete and potentially unfair.
  3. [§4.3, Table 3] The paper states that 'across all experimental setups in Section 4.1 compared to the current one, all our causal modifications demonstrate significantly stronger robustness to decreasing tolerance thresholds.' However, Table 3 does not include the non-causal TP1 baseline from Table 1 under the same evaluation protocol, and the experimental setups differ in training segments, windowing, and postprocessing. This statement, and the similar claim in §5, should be supported by a direct comparison or qualified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The row labels 'TP1'...'TP5' are rendered ambiguously (e.g., 'TP19.58' reads as TP19). Use clear spacing or a separate column.
  2. [§4.2] The text says 'H2' for Hann 10 ms delay, but Table 2 labels it 'H2'; consider using H1/H2 consistently. Also, the claim of 'by about 20 dB' spectral leakage has no measurement details.
  3. [§4.1] The notation alternates between 'T5' and 'TP5'; please unify. Also clarify whether Tables 1–4 all use the same 3-second segment training except A6.
  4. [§3.2] Footnote 1 flags a missing detail in the reference Mobile-AMT about offset postprocessing. It would help to state whether this affects the comparison.
  5. [§4.2] The text 'BZ0' should be 'B♭0' (or 'Bb0').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical system paper with self-contained comparisons.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical system paper. The central claim about Mobile-AMT's hidden 10-second latency follows directly from the architecture description (SE layers globally pool over 10-second input blocks), not from any fitted parameter. The proposed Causal-AMT is evaluated against a reimplementation of Mobile-AMT under matched training budgets; while the baseline's training duration is shorter than in the original paper, that is an experimental validity concern, not circularity. All onset thresholds and tolerances are reported across a grid, so no post-hoc fit to a target conclusion is evident. The shift-tolerant loss from the authors' prior work [19] is applied as an external method; it is tested in exploratory setups (TP4/TP5) and explicitly not used in the final causal model, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. No equation or definition reduces the claimed predictions to the inputs; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work to force the choice. The final conclusions—that causal processing and shifted windows hurt accuracy, and that robustness at tight tolerances improves—are empirical observations from the reported experiments and are not circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several domain assumptions about the MAESTRO benchmark, the sufficiency of a 9-frame context, and the validity of short training runs. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; Causal-AMT is an architecture, not an entity.

free parameters (4)
  • Onset threshold in postprocessing = 0.45, 0.55, 0.65 (reported across runs)
    Chosen manually to convert probabilities to binary activations; results vary strongly with threshold, and the final comparison does not state which threshold was used.
  • Positive-class loss weight = 10
    Applied to onset and offset targets in BCE loss to counter class imbalance (TP3, TP5).
  • Shift tolerance in loss = +/-1 frame (10 ms)
    Shift-tolerant BCE from [19]; the paper acknowledges it may cause systematically delayed predictions.
  • Asymmetric window delay n_s = 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 ms tested
    The shift length of the STFT window trades latency against accuracy; 10 ms is chosen as the strictest setting for the final model.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The MAESTRO v3.0 dataset and its labels are a valid benchmark for real-time piano transcription.
    The entire evaluation uses MAESTRO; no in-the-wild or live audio is tested, so conclusions about real-time suitability rest on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The causal receptive field of 9 frames (8 past, 1 current) is sufficient for detecting note onsets and offsets.
    Section 4.2 states 'we make each convolution causal, so the model's receptive field of 9 frames extends 8 frames into the past'; this context window is not validated against longer contexts.
  • ad hoc to paper Relative model rankings at 500 epochs persist at convergence.
    Section 4 states 'most effects become evident already during the early training stages'; used to compare all architectural variants, but not verified for each variant.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring System Adaptations For Minimum Latency Real-Time Piano Transcription." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/67HO56G6

@misc{pith2026250907586,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring System Adaptations For Minimum Latency Real-Time Piano Transcription},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/67HO56G6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07586}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Advances in neural network design and the availability of large-scale labeled datasets have driven major improvements in piano transcription. Existing approaches target either offline applications, with no restrictions on computational demands, or online transcription, with delays of 128-320 ms. However, most real-time musical applications require latencies below 30 ms. In this work, we investigate whether and how the current state-of-the-art online transcription model can be adapted for real-time piano transcription. Specifically, we eliminate all non-causal processing, and reduce computational load through shared computations across core model components and variations in model size. Additionally, we explore different pre- and postprocessing strategies, and related label encoding schemes, and discuss their suitability for real-time transcription. Evaluating the adaptions on the MAESTRO dataset, we find a drop in transcription accuracy due to strictly causal processing as well as a tradeoff between the preprocessing latency and prediction accuracy. We release our system as a baseline to support researchers in designing models towards minimum latency real-time transcription.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Exploring System Adaptations For Minimum Latency Real-Time Piano Transcription

    INTRODUCTION Automatic music transcription (AMT) is the task of trans- forming audio signals into their symbolic music represen- tation, and is commonly referred to as one of the holy grails in Music Information Retrieval (MIR), given its role in linking the audio and symbolic domain, as well as its rel- evance to various downstream tasks and musical appl...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    We will dis- cuss three noteworthy contributions [5–7]

    RELA TED WORK As outlined in the previous section, both online and real- time transcription remain largely unexplored. We will dis- cuss three noteworthy contributions [5–7]. Fernandez [6] proposes a purely convolutional model- ing approach that focuses solely on onset and velocity pre- diction, achieving a latency between 4 and 9 seconds. Kwon et al. [7,...

    work page

  3. [3]

    STARTING POINT As Mobile-AMT [5] represents the current state of the art in real-time piano transcription, we use this method as the foundation and reference method for our adaptations to- wards minimum-latency transcription. To provide context for these modifications, we first outline the structure of the model, and particularly focus on the modeling asp...

    work page 2048

  4. [4]

    REAL-TIME ADAPTA TIONS As our main contribution, we implement and evaluate adaptations of the starting point that aim to reduce the system’s latency. We form three groups of experiments: 1 The offset prediction is omitted during inference, but no additional details are provided on whether or how the postprocessing is adjusted to account for this missing i...

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    neither musical nor interactive

    DISCUSSION AND OUTLOOK In this work, we investigate whether and how the cur- rent state of the art in real-time piano transcription can be adapted to achieve minimum-latency automatic piano tran- scription suitable for real-time musical interaction. What latency is suitable cannot be answered univer- sally, so our choice of 10–30 ms is worthy of discus- s...

    work page

  6. [6]

    101019375Whither Music?

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research acknowledges support by the European Re- search Council (ERC), under the European Union’s Hori- zon 2020 research and innovation programme, grant agree- ment No. 101019375Whither Music?. The LIT AI Lab is supported by the Federal State of Upper Austria

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Enabling factorized piano music modeling and generation with the MAESTRO dataset,

    C. Hawthorne, A. Stasyuk, A. Roberts, I. Simon, C.- Z. A. Huang, S. Dieleman, E. Elsen, J. Engel, and D. Eck, “Enabling factorized piano music modeling and generation with the MAESTRO dataset,” inIn- ternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    High- Resolution Piano Transcription with Pedals by Re- gressing Onset and Offset Times,

    Q. Kong, B. Li, X. Song, Y . Wan, and Y . Wang, “High- Resolution Piano Transcription with Pedals by Re- gressing Onset and Offset Times,”IEEE/ACM Trans- actions on Audio Speech and Language Processing, vol. 29, pp. 3707–3717, 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    An end-to-end neural network for polyphonic piano music transcrip- tion,

    S. Sigtia, E. Benetos, and S. Dixon, “An end-to-end neural network for polyphonic piano music transcrip- tion,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 927–939, 2016

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    Deep polyphonic adsr piano note transcription,

    R. Kelz, S. Böck, and G. Widmer, “Deep polyphonic adsr piano note transcription,” inICASSP 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2019, pp. 246–250

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Mobile-AMT: Real- Time Polyphonic Piano Transcription for In-the-Wild Recordings,

    Y . Kusaka and A. Maezawa, “Mobile-AMT: Real- Time Polyphonic Piano Transcription for In-the-Wild Recordings,” in2024 32nd European Signal Process- ing Conference (EUSIPCO). IEEE, 2024, pp. 36–40

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Onsets and Velocities: Affordable Real-Time Piano Transcription Using Convolutional Neural Networks,

    A. Fernandez, “Onsets and Velocities: Affordable Real-Time Piano Transcription Using Convolutional Neural Networks,” in2023 31st European Signal Pro- cessing Conference (EUSIPCO). IEEE, 2023, pp. 151–155

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Towards Efficient and Real-Time Piano Transcription Using Neural Autore- gressive Models,

    T. Kwon, D. Jeong, and J. Nam, “Towards Efficient and Real-Time Piano Transcription Using Neural Autore- gressive Models,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 2024

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Problems and prospects for intimate musical control of computers,

    D. Wessel and M. Wright, “Problems and prospects for intimate musical control of computers,”Computer mu- sic journal, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 11–22, 2002

    work page 2002

  15. [15]

    Action- sound latency: Are our tools fast enough?

    A. P. McPherson, R. H. Jack, and G. Moro, “Action- sound latency: Are our tools fast enough?” in 16th International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, NIME 2016, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia, July 11-15, 2016. nime.org, 2016, pp. 20–25. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.3964611

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.3964611 2016

  16. [16]

    Designing Neural Synthesizers for Low-Latency Interaction

    F. Caspe, J. Shier, M. Sandler, C. Saitis, and A. McPherson, “Designing neural synthesizers for low latency interaction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11562, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    On the relation between the fields of networked music performances, ubiqui- tous music, and internet of musical things,

    L. Turchet and C. Rottondi, “On the relation between the fields of networked music performances, ubiqui- tous music, and internet of musical things,”Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1783– 1792, 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Im- proving networked music performance systems us- ing application-network collaboration,

    E. Lakiotakis, C. Liaskos, and X. Dimitropoulos, “Im- proving networked music performance systems us- ing application-network collaboration,”Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, vol. 31, no. 24, p. e4730, 2019

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    Musical interaction at a dis- tance: Distributed immersive performance,

    E. Chew, R. Zimmermann, A. A. Sawchuk, C. Kyr- iakakis, C. Papadopoulos, A. François, G. Kim, A. Rizzo, and A. V olk, “Musical interaction at a dis- tance: Distributed immersive performance,” inPro- ceedings of the MusicNetwork Fourth Open Workshop on Integration of Music in Multimedia Applications. MusicNetwork Barcelona, 2004, pp. 15–16

    work page 2004

  20. [20]

    Polyphonic Piano Transcription Using Autoregressive Multi-State Note Model,

    T. Kwon, D. Jeong, and J. Nam, “Polyphonic Piano Transcription Using Autoregressive Multi-State Note Model,” inThe 21th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR). Interna- tional Society for Music Information Retrieval, 2020

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Real-time automatic piano music transcription system,

    D. Jeong and S. Telecom, “Real-time automatic piano music transcription system,” inLate Breaking Demo. International Society for Music Information Retrieval, 2020, pp. 4–6

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Searching for MobileNetV3,

    A. Howard, M. Sandler, G. Chu, L.-C. Chen, B. Chen, M. Tan, W. Wang, Y . Zhu, R. Pang, V . Vasudevanet al., “Searching for MobileNetV3,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vi- sion, 2019, pp. 1314–1324

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    MIR_EV AL: A Transparent Implementation of Com- mon MIR Metrics

    C. Raffel, B. McFee, E. J. Humphrey, J. Salamon, O. Nieto, D. Liang, D. P. Ellis, and C. C. Raffel, “MIR_EV AL: A Transparent Implementation of Com- mon MIR Metrics.” inISMIR, vol. 10, 2014, p. 2014

    work page 2014

  24. [24]

    A lightweight instrument- agnostic model for polyphonic note transcription and multipitch estimation,

    R. M. Bittner, J. J. Bosch, D. Rubinstein, G. Meseguer- Brocal, and S. Ewert, “A lightweight instrument- agnostic model for polyphonic note transcription and multipitch estimation,” inProceedings of the IEEE In- ternational Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Sig- nal Processing (ICASSP), Singapore, 2022

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Beat this! Accurate beat tracking without DBN postprocessing,

    F. Foscarin, J. Schlüter, and G. Widmer, “Beat this! Accurate beat tracking without DBN postprocessing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21658, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Action-sound latency and the perceived quality of digital musical instruments: Comparing professional percussionists and amateur musicians,

    R. H. Jack, A. Mehrabi, T. Stockman, and A. McPher- son, “Action-sound latency and the perceived quality of digital musical instruments: Comparing professional percussionists and amateur musicians,”Music Percep- tion, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 109–128, 09 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2018.36.1.109

    work page doi:10.1525/mp.2018.36.1.109 2018

  27. [27]

    The effects of latency on live sound monitoring,

    M. Lester and J. Boley, “The effects of latency on live sound monitoring,”Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, no. 7198, october 2007

    work page 2007

  28. [28]

    Latency tolerance for gesture controlled continuous sound instrument without tactile feedback,

    T. Mäki-Patola and P. Hämäläinen, “Latency tolerance for gesture controlled continuous sound instrument without tactile feedback,” inProceedings of the 2004 International Computer Music Conference, ICMC 2004, Miami, Florida, USA, November 1-6, 2004. Michigan Publishing, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.bbp2372.2004.032

    work page arXiv 2004

  29. [29]

    Time discrimination in a monotonic, isochronous sequence,

    A. Friberg and J. Sundberg, “Time discrimination in a monotonic, isochronous sequence,”The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 98, no. 5, pp. 2524–2531, 1995

    work page 1995

  30. [30]

    Measuring the just noticeable difference for audio latency,

    A. Schmid, M. Ambros, J. Bogon, and R. Wimmer, “Measuring the just noticeable difference for audio latency,” inProceedings of the 19th International Audio Mostly Conference: Explorations in Sonic Cultures, AM 2024, Milan, Italy, September 18- 20, 2024, L. A. Ludovico and D. A. Mauro, Eds. ACM, 2024, pp. 325–331. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.114...

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Is the player more influenced by the auditory than the tactile feedback from the in- strument,

    S. Dahl and R. Bresin, “Is the player more influenced by the auditory than the tactile feedback from the in- strument,” inProceedings of the Digital Audio Effects Conference (DAFx), 2001, pp. 6–9

    work page 2001

  32. [32]

    From remote media immersion to distributed immersive performance,

    A. A. Sawchuk, E. Chew, R. Zimmermann, C. Pa- padopoulos, and C. Kyriakakis, “From remote media immersion to distributed immersive performance,” inProceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMM Work- shop on Experiential Telepresence, ser. ETP ’03. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2003, p. 110–120. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/9...

    work page arXiv 2003

  33. [33]

    Effect of network latency on interactive musical performance,

    C. Bartlette, D. Headlam, M. Bocko, and G. Velikic, “Effect of network latency on interactive musical performance,”Music Perception, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 49–62, 09 2006. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1525/mp.2006.24.1.49

    work page doi:10.1525/mp.2006.24.1.49 2006

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.