Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Analysis of gesture-sound decorrelation in electronic drumming

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Same hits, less sound: electronic drums decouple gesture from tone

desk verdict A small, honest pilot with a novel markerless motion-capture application, but the central 'similar striking speed' premise rests on an underpowered null with n=3 and no equivalence testing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08571 v1 pith:KJPBD3Q4 submitted 2025-05-13 physics.med-ph

Mathias Blandeau (LAMIH) , Eugénie Avril (LAMIH) This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-ph
keywords electronicdrumsgesture-sounddecorrelationmusculoskeletaldisordersdrummingkinematicsmarkerlessmotioncaptureOpenPosejointangularvelocityacousticvsinstruments
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 asks whether playing an electronic drum kit changes how drummers strike the instrument. It reports that electronic drums produce significantly lower maximum sound levels than acoustic drums at the same dynamic marking, even though the drummers' wrist and elbow angular velocities—the measurable speed of the hit—are not statistically different between the two instruments. The authors describe this as a gesture-sound decorrelation: on an acoustic drum, a louder sound means a harder hit, but on an electronic pad the two can diverge. If this finding holds, it matters because drummers who switch to electronic kits for quiet practice may unknowingly strike harder and more precisely to reproduce the acoustic feel, raising the mechanical load on their upper limbs and the risk of musculoskeletal disorders.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is 'gesture-sound decorrelation': the loss of the acoustic drum's tight coupling between strike force and sound intensity. To make that decorrelation visible, the study pairs a sound-level meter with markerless 2D pose estimation (OpenPose) to extract elbow and wrist angular velocities for every strike, then compares those kinematic and acoustic measurements across instrument type, dynamic nuance, and the presence of auditory feedback. This pipeline makes the decorrelation observable in a single protocol.

What would settle it

Perform a pre-registered equivalence test on peak wrist and elbow angular velocities between acoustic and electronic snare drumming with at least 20 drummers. If the equivalence bounds (e.g., ±10% of the acoustic mean) are not met, or if the electronic drum's maximum dBA is not significantly lower at the same perceived effort, the gesture-sound decorrelation claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that on an electronic drum kit, the natural proportionality between striking effort and sound output is broken. Using a smartphone camera, markerless pose estimation, and a sound-level meter, the authors compared a snare-drum pattern played by three experienced drummers on an acoustic snare and on a Yamaha Multi Pad DD-75, at piano and forte dynamics and with and without noise-canceling headphones. Sound pressure was significantly lower on the electronic pad (p<0.001) even though participants had been asked to set its volume so that it 'would sound like the acoustic drum for the same hit.' Peak angular velocities of the wrist and elbow did not differ significantly between the two instruments, while the forte/piano contrast changed them by up to a factor of three. The authors interpret the combination—same measurable gesture speed, quieter result—as a decorrelation of gesture and sound, and propose that it could drive drummers to increase strike force on the pad, thereby increasing upper-limb joint loading and the likelihood of playing-related musculoskeletal disorders.

Load-bearing premise

The central interpretation rests on treating the absence of a significant difference in wrist and elbow angular velocities between acoustic and electronic drums—measured in only three drummers—as evidence that the striking gesture is genuinely the same, rather than merely not detectably different.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the finding is correct, drummers practicing on electronic kits without a monitor or sound system will tend to hit the pad harder than they would an acoustic snare to reach the same perceived loudness, increasing joint loading.
  • The non-significant difference in joint angular velocities across instrument types suggests that experienced drummers do not spontaneously adapt their striking kinematics to the pad; the adaptation is made by force or amplitude, which they feel as a need for extra precision and fatigue.
  • Because auditory feedback (headphones on/off) had no measurable effect on either sound level or kinematics, the decorrelation does not depend on whether the player hears the instrument directly; it is a property of the electronic pad's response to an unchanged gesture.
  • The study's use of peak elbow and wrist angular velocity as the kinematic benchmark implies that interventions or instrument designs aimed at preventing musculoskeletal disorders should address the instrument's force-to-sound transfer function, not just overall loudness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This is a proof-of-concept rather than an epidemiological result; with three participants, the absence of a kinematic difference is best read as a tentative suggestion, and a larger study using equivalence tests could confirm or refute the claim that the gestures are genuinely matched.
  • The same measurement strategy could be extended to practice pads and other trigger-based instruments, such as electronic mallet percussion or drum triggers, to see whether the decorrelation is specific to this pad or a general feature of trigger-based sound production.
  • A directional hypothesis follows: as drummers play longer on electronic kits, their strike velocity—and hence joint loading—may trend upward as they unconsciously chase the acoustic feedback they expect; a longitudinal recording of pad strikes over weeks would test this.
  • The paper's perceptual dimension suggests that restoring a non-auditory feedback channel, such as a visual level meter or a haptic pad response, could reduce the tendency to overstrike without requiring loud acoustic practice.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This conference paper tests whether playing an electronic drum kit decorrelates the striking gesture from the sound it produces. Three experienced drummers (all trained on acoustic drums) played a repeated five-measure snare-drum pattern at 100 BPM under eight conditions crossing instrument (acoustic snare drum vs. Yamaha DD-75 electronic pad), auditory feedback (sound on vs. sound off with headphones), and dynamics (piano vs. forte). Maximal dBA sound level was recorded with a sound-level meter; right wrist and elbow angular velocities were extracted from 60 Hz smartphone video using OpenPose markerless tracking; Likert questionnaires and self-confrontation interviews complemented the quantitative data. The authors report significantly lower maximal sound levels for the electronic kit (p<0.001) and non-significant kinematic differences between instrument types, and they interpret this combination as a gesture-sound decorrelation that could explain the increased musculoskeletal disorder risk reported among drummers switching to electronic instruments.

Significance. The research question is timely and understudied: drummers face high rates of playing-related musculoskeletal disorders, and the hypothesis that electronic kits decorrelate gesture from sound is mechanistically plausible but, to my knowledge, has not been directly tested. Strengths of the manuscript include the use of markerless video-based motion capture for drumming kinematics (stated to be a first in this domain); the multi-method design combining kinematics, sound, questionnaires, and self-confrontation interviews; the within-subject 2x2x2 design; and the authors' candid acknowledgment of their measurement limitations. The ancillary piano/forte result (up to threefold angular-velocity differences, p<0.001) is a useful internal control showing that the kinematic pipeline can resolve large effects. The paper ships no data or code, however, and the central inference currently exceeds what the evidence supports: the study is best read as hypothesis-generating.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3.2; Section 4] The central claim of a gesture-sound decorrelation rests on the premise that striking kinematics are similar on acoustic and electronic drums, but that premise is supported only by a non-significant battery-type effect in wrist and elbow angular velocities measured from three participants. Section 3.2 reports no equivalence bounds, effect sizes, or confidence intervals for the acoustic-versus-electronic comparison, and a null p-value cannot establish similarity; the authors themselves acknowledge the small sample ('le nombre trop faible de sujets') in Section 4. Because the phrase 'malgré une vitesse de frappe similaire' in the Abstract is what converts the observed sound difference into a decorrelation, the manuscript should either provide a formal equivalence analysis (for example, two one-sided tests with bounds anchored to the piano/forte contrast, which produced up to threefold differences) or explicitly restate the conclusion as a hypothesis consistent with, but not established by, the data. In addition, the manuscript never directly tests the gesture-sound link: the 'decorrelation' label is inferred from two separate significance tests rather than from, say, an instrument-by-dynamics interaction on sound or a test of whether the sound difference persists after controlling for angular velocity.
  2. [Section 2.3; Section 3.1] The sound outcome is a single maximal-dBA reading per acquisition from a sound-level meter, so the measured values cannot be attributed to individual strikes; the authors acknowledge this in Section 4 and further note that stick clicks may have inflated some piano-condition readings. This matters because the 'lower sound power of electronic drums' is the second leg of the decorrelation claim: the direction of the battery effect (p<0.001) is plausible and would only be strengthened if stick-click noise inflates the quieter condition, but the magnitude of the acoustic-electronic difference is not quantitatively established, and the assumed proportionality between sound level and striking force on the acoustic kit is not verified by any force or acceleration measurement. Please report per-strike sound levels or a validated per-trial summary, and quantify the potential stick-click contamination.
  3. [Section 2.3 (statistical analysis)] The statistical methods are under-specified in a way that affects every reported p-value. The text says a 'T-test' was applied to data from 'les 3 conditions d'acquisition,' although the design is 2x2x2 (eight conditions), and it is not stated whether the three identified strikes per trial were pooled (which would pseudo-replicate within participants), whether data were averaged per subject, whether the tests were paired, or whether the tests on the three factors (battery, headphone, nuance) were multiplicity-corrected. Specifying the statistical model, the unit of analysis, and the number of observations per cell is necessary before the non-significant kinematic battery-type effect can be interpreted at all.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figures 2-4] The in-text figure references do not match the captions: Section 3.1 cites 'Figure 2' for sound levels while the Figure 2 caption describes the strike-identification interface, Section 2.3 cites 'Figure 3' for the interface while the Figure 3 caption describes OpenPose tracking, and Section 2.3 cites 'Figure 4' for OpenPose while the Figure 4 caption describes sound levels; the numbering or the captions should be corrected.
  2. [Table 2] 'Lickert' should be spelled 'Likert' in the two rows of Table 2, and the statistical test should be identified as a Student's t-test (or a nonparametric alternative) with the paired or unpaired nature specified.
  3. [Abstract; Table 1] The abstract refers to 'casque anti-bruit' (noise-canceling headphones) while Table 1 lists 'casque de protection' (protective headphones); the same apparatus should be described consistently.
  4. [References] Reference [25] (Bernstein, The co-ordination and regulation of movements) is garbled: it cites a 1967 Pergamon volume but the URL points to a 1969 Brain Research article; please correct the bibliographic data.
  5. [Section 3.2] The result that forte playing produced angular velocities 'jusqu'à 3 fois plus rapide' should state the direction explicitly (forte faster than piano) and report the actual means and dispersions, since the figure panels are not legible in the manuscript text.
  6. [Section 2.3] The rationale for analyzing only the three selected strikes (the first strike of measures 2 and 3 and the last strike of measure 5) is not explained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: direct experimental measurements; the central null result is a statistical power limitation, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

This paper is an experimental measurement study with no fitted parameters, no mathematical derivation, and no equation-level reduction. The central claim—electronic drums produce lower sound power than acoustic drums despite similar striking speed—is based on directly measured sound levels and joint angular velocities. The phrase 'malgré une vitesse de frappe similaire' rests on the absence of a statistically significant difference between battery types in Section 3.2, which is an underpowered null result given n=3 and no equivalence bounds; that is a correctness or statistical-inference concern, not circularity. The self-citations to Hubaut et al. [23] and Cara and Blandeau [24] are methodological references for combining motion analysis with ergonomic questionnaires and for proprioception assessment; they do not supply the load-bearing premise of gesture-sound decorrelation. No prediction is derived from the data by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or fitted input is imported from prior work. The study is self-contained as an empirical observation, so it receives a circularity score of 0.

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

The study introduces no new entities or fitted parameters. It relies on domain assumptions about measurement validity (sound level meter, OpenPose) and on the statistical interpretation of a small-sample null result.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The maximum dBA level from the sound level meter is a valid proxy for the sound produced by the target strikes, despite lack of per-strike synchronization.
    The authors note in the Discussion that the sonometer in max mode cannot identify which strike produced the measured sound, and that stick clicks may have inflated quiet trials. The analysis relies on this measurement as the primary sound outcome.
  • domain assumption Two-dimensional joint angular velocities from OpenPose at 60 Hz are adequate to capture the striking gesture and its relationship to sound production.
    The kinematic analysis in Section 2.3 and 3.2 uses these velocities as the sole measure of 'striking speed' and equates similarity in these velocities with similarity in gesture. The accuracy of OpenPose is not validated in this setup, and the paper mentions the software is outdated.
  • domain assumption A non-significant difference between drum types with n=3 indicates that the kinematics are effectively identical.
    Section 3.2 reports no significant effect of drum type, and this null result is interpreted as 'similar striking speed' in the abstract. This treats absence of evidence as evidence of absence without equivalence testing or power analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of gesture-sound decorrelation in electronic drumming." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KJPBD3Q4

@misc{pith2026250508571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of gesture-sound decorrelation in electronic drumming},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KJPBD3Q4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08571}
}
read the original abstract

Drumming belongs to a family of musical instruments whose practice, whether as an amateur or at a high level, is associated with an increased risk of musculoskeletal disorders (MSD), particularly of the upper limbs and lumbar spine. The vast majority of drummers learn to play on acoustic instruments, the sound intensity of which is proportional to the striking force developed. This correlation is disrupted when playing the electronic version of the instrument, which is often purchased by musicians seeking to reduce the sound produced (e.g. playing in apartments). The aim of this study was therefore to analyze whether drumming on electronic equipment would lead to a change in the kinematics and feel of drummers. To this end, several drummers were recruited to perform repeated rhythms at different pitches on acoustic and electric drums under two sound conditions (sound on and sound off with noise-canceling headphones). The sound produced and the kinematics of the upper limbs were measured by video motion capture during the beats. In addition, self-confrontation interviews were conducted after each condition. The drummers, confronted with video recordings of their actions, were asked to describe, explain and comment step by step on their performance. These interviews were also used to assess their ability to maintain a constant strike force. A questionnaire was used to obtain subjective information on how they felt. The results showed a lower sound power of electronic drums, despite a similar striking speed. This gesture-sound decorrelation could explain the increase in MSD among drummers when switching from an acoustic to an electronic instrument.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Comment évaluez-vous votre force de frappe ? Lickert 7 points

    work page

  2. [2]

    A quel point vous sentiez-vous à l’aise en jouant ? Lickert 5 points

    work page

  3. [3]

    A quel point aviez -vous besoin de vous concentrer pour maintenir le rythme demandé ? Lickert 5 points

    work page

  4. [4]

    Figure 4)

    A quel point avez -vous besoin de vous concentrer pour maintenir la nuance demandée ? Lickert 5 points Les données vidéos ont été traitées à l’aide du logiciel OpenPose [18] qui permet de détecter la pose 2D d’un ou plusieurs personnes dans une image (cf. Figure 4). OpenPose représente un des premiers logiciels dits de capture du mouvement « sans marqueur...

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Stanhope, D

    J. Stanhope, D. Pisaniello, et P. Weinstein, « What do musicians think caused their musculoskeletal symptoms? », Int J Occup Saf Ergon, vol. 28, no 3, p. 1543‑1551, sept. 2022, doi: 10.1080/10803548.2021.1902673

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Cieza, K

    A. Cieza, K. Causey, K. Kamenov, S. W. Hanson, S. Chatterji, et T. V os, « Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 », The Lancet, vol. 396, n o 10267, p. 2006‑2017, déc. 2020, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32340-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32340-0 2019

  7. [7]

    Bodin et al

    J. Bodin et al. , « Effects of individual and work -related factors on incidence of shoulder pain in a large working population », J Occup Health, vol. 54, no 4, p. 278‑288, 2012, doi: 10.1539/joh.11-0262-oa

    work page doi:10.1539/joh.11-0262-oa 2012

  8. [8]

    N. R. Azar, « Injury prevention education provided during formal drum kit training is associated with lower frequency reporting of playing -related musculoskeletal disorders », Journal of Popular Music Education , vol. 5, no Drum Kit Studies, p. 187‑210, juill. 2021, doi: 10.1386/jpme_00057_1

    work page doi:10.1386/jpme_00057_1 2021

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Stanhope, « Physical performance and musculoskeletal disorders: Are musicians and sportspeople on a level playing field? », Performance Enhancement & Health, vol

    J. Stanhope, « Physical performance and musculoskeletal disorders: Are musicians and sportspeople on a level playing field? », Performance Enhancement & Health, vol. 4, no 1, p. 18‑26, mars 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.peh.2015.11.004

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Goubault, F

    E. Goubault, F. Verdugo, F. Bailly, M. Begon, et F. D. Maso, « Inertial Measurement Units and Partial Least Square Regression to Predict Perceived Exertion During Repetitive Fatiguing Piano Tasks », IEEE Transactions on Human - Machine Systems, vol. 53, n o 4, p. 802‑810, août...

    2023

  3. [11]

    L. K. Kelleher, K. R. Campbell, et J. P. Dickey, « Biomechanical research on bowed string musicians: a scoping study », Med Probl Perform Art , vol. 28, n o 4, p. 212‑218, déc. 2013

    2013

  4. [13]

    Tomezzoli, B

    A. Tomezzoli, B. Michaud, E. Gagné, M. Begon, et S. Duprey, « Effect of Bow Camber and Mass Distribution on Violinists’ Preferences and Performance », Front. Psychol., vol. 12, nov. 2021, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.769831

    2021

  5. [14]

    Goubault, F

    E. Goubault, F. Verdugo, J. Pelletier, C. Traube, M. Begon, et F. Dal Maso, « Exhausting repetitive piano tasks lead to local forearm manifestation of muscle fatigue and negatively affect musical parameters », Sci Rep , vol. 11, n o 1, p. 8117, avr. 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41598-0...

    2021 doi

  6. [15]

    Leplat, « Les gestes dans l’activité en situation de travail », Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé , no 15‑1, Art

    J. Leplat, « Les gestes dans l’activité en situation de travail », Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé , no 15‑1, Art. no 15‑1, févr. 2013, doi: 10.4000/pistes.2951

    2013 doi

  7. [16]

    N. R. Azar, « Rates and Patterns of Playing -Related Musculoskeletal Disorders in Drummers », Med Probl Perform Art , vol. 35, n o 3, p. 153‑161, sept. 2020, doi: 10.21091/mppa.2020.3020

    2020

  8. [17]

    N. R. Azar, « Injury Prevention Considerations for Drum Kit Performance », Front. Psychol. , vol. 13, mai 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883279

    2022

  9. [18]

    N. R. Azar, « Drummers are athletes: professional drummers’ energy expenditures and heart rates during live performances », in Percussive Arts Society International Convention. Indianapolis, November , 2021, p. 10‑14. Consulté le: 3 mars 2025. [En ligne]. Disponible sur: https...

    2021

  10. [19]

    Simonet et S

    P. Simonet et S. Caroly, « « Geste dialogué » et prévention des TMS », Le travail humain, vol. 83, n o 1, p. 1‑32, mars 2020, doi: 10.3917/th.831.0001

    2020 doi

  11. [20]

    Mutio, F

    M. Mutio, F. Marandola, K. Ben Mansour, J. André, et F. Marin, « Motion analysis of snare drum in relation with the musician’s expertise », Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering , vol. 20, n o sup1, p. 149‑150, oct. 2017, doi: 10.1080/10255842.2017.1382905

    2017

  12. [21]

    D. J. Levitin, J. A. Grahn, et J. London, « The Psychology of Music: Rhythm and Movement », Annu. Rev. Psychol., vol. 69, n o 1, p. 51‑75, janv. 2018, doi: 10.1146/annurev -psych- 122216-011740

    2018 doi

  13. [22]

    Schutz et S

    M. Schutz et S. Lipscomb, « Hearing gestures, seeing music: vision influences perceived tone duration », Perception, vol. 36, no 6, p. 888‑897, 2007, doi: 10.1068/p5635

    2007 doi

  14. [23]

    ou même dans la proprioception pendant la rééducation du membre supérieur [24]. La performance musicale, transportant le musicien dans un état de transe [16] ou de cognition musicale incarnée [26], est associée positivement à des mouvements amples, souples et dépourvus de cont...

    2025

  15. [24]

    Z. Cao, G. Hidalgo, T. Simon, S. -E. Wei, et Y . Sheikh, « OpenPose: Realtime Multi -Person 2D Pose Estimation Using Part Affinity Fields », IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , vol. 43, n o 1, p. 172‑186, janv. 2021, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2929257

    2021

  16. [25]

    Muller, B

    A. Muller, B. Boulaire, A. Chaumeil, N. Hagemeister, R. Dumas, et T. Robert, « Comparison of marker -based and markerless motion analysis: robustness to camera reduction », Multidisciplinary Biomechanics Journal, vol. 49, no Motion analysis and simulation, 2024, Consulté le: 13 mars

    2024

  17. [26]

    Burger et C

    B. Burger et C. Wöllner, « Drumming Action and Perception: How the Movements of a Professional Drummer Influence Experiences of Tempo, Time, and Expressivity », Music & Science, vol. 6, p. 20592043231186870, janv. 2023, doi: 10.1177/20592043231186870

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

    Pagnon et H

    D. Pagnon et H. Kim, « Sports2D: Compute 2D human pose and angles from a video or a webcam », Journal of Ope n Source Software , vol. 9, n o 101, p. 6849, 2024, doi: 10.21105/joss.06849

    2024 doi

  19. [28]

    Pagnon, M

    D. Pagnon, M. Domalain, et L. Reveret, « Pose2Sim: An End- to-End Workflow for 3D Markerless Sports Kinematics — Part 1: Robustness », Sensors, vol. 21, no 19, Art. no 19, janv. 2021, doi: 10.3390/s21196530

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    Hubaut, R

    R. Hubaut, R. Guichard, J. Greenfield, et M. Blandeau, « Validation of an Embedded Motion -Capture and EMG Setup for the Analysis of Musculoskeletal Disorder Risks during Manhole Cover Handling », Sensors, vol. 22, no 2, Art. no 2, janv. 2022, doi: 10.3390/s22020436

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    Cara et M

    G. Cara et M. Blandeau, « Correlation between the repositioning error measured and subjectively assessed by healthy subject during shoulder flexion », Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies , vol. 42, p. 48‑55, juin 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2024.11.007

    2025 doi

  22. [31]

    Bernstein, The co -ordination and regulation of movements, Oxford : Pergamon Press., vol

    N. Bernstein, The co -ordination and regulation of movements, Oxford : Pergamon Press., vol. 13, n o 3. 1967. Consulté le: 13 mars 2025. [En ligne]. Disponible sur: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/00068993699027 89

    1967

  23. [2025]

    Disponible sur: https://mbj.episciences.org/14481/pdf

    [En ligne]. Disponible sur: https://mbj.episciences.org/14481/pdf

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.