3
Motivation
The constitution/modulation question has become urgent for three reasons.
methodological practice assumes universality without testing it. Cross-cultural studies use Western-developed paradigms (tapping tasks, duration reproduction) assuming they measure equivalent capacities across populations. If culture constitutes temporal processing, these paradigms may impose etic categories that systematically distort non-Western cognition. The widely-cited finding that "beat perception is universal" (Mehr et al., 2019) may reflect paradigm design, for example tasks presupposing the beat concept they claim to discover.
current models cannot fully explain the Jacoby et al. recent findings. The coexistence of universal integer-ratio constraints with culture-specific category structures requires explanation. Modulation accounts explain different weightings of universal categories; constitution might explain categories that exist in some populations and not others. However, this interpretation requires caution: the Malian 7:2:3 pattern could also reflect statistical learning from specific repertoire, making the learning mechanism universal but the input culturally specific. Distinguishing these interpretations is empirically tractable but not yet resolved.
practical applications assume universal baselines. Clinical assessment of timing deficits uses norms derived primarily from Western populations
(Grahn & Brett, 2007, 893-900). Music education treats rhythmic competencies as developable from shared starting points. If temporal cognition is partially constituted by cultural experience, these practices may pathologize difference or miss culturally-specific capacities.
←3