The seemingly trivial ability to hear a regular pulse in music is a remarkable—and perhaps distinctively human—feature of the brain. In a wide-ranging critical review, Gábor Háden of the HUN-REN Research Centre for Natural Sciences and Henkjan Honing of the University of Amsterdam evaluate more than two decades of research into how this capacity develops and evolved. Their paper was published this week in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

Beat perception allows us to extract a regular pulse from a rhythm. It makes it possible to clap along, dance together and coordinate a musical ensemble. The review critically examines four often-made claims: that beat processing is near-universal across human cultures, develops spontaneously, supports a distinctive form of predictive timing and is rare across species. Its conclusion is deliberately nuanced: the foundations of beat perception appear to be present at birth and are refined by experience, movement and culture, but the available evidence does not justify every stronger claim made in the field.

Studies measuring newborn brain activity show responses to missing sounds at metrically important positions, even when those positions are not marked by a louder sound. Crucially, newer experiments indicate that these responses cannot be explained by learning the statistical order of sounds alone. The evidence therefore points to an early sensitivity to periodic structure and beat-based prediction.

“Newborns are not miniature adult listeners, but their brains already seem prepared to use rhythmic structure to predict when something should happen,” says Honing. “Experience does not create this capacity from scratch; it calibrates and enriches it.”

Across infancy and childhood, auditory exposure, motor development and musical enculturation improve the precision, flexibility and hierarchical organisation of rhythmic processing. The authors nevertheless caution against saying that newborns possess fully mature beat or meter perception: neural sensitivity is not the same as conscious experience, and early timing capacities continue to develop.

Comparisons with other primates help separate ancient timing capacities from abilities that became especially elaborated in humans. Macaques can detect regular timing and, after extensive training, adjust their tapping tempo to music. But they generally do not show the stable phase alignment and flexible, predictive synchronisation that humans display readily. Evidence from non-human animals is still sparse, however, and successful synchronisation has been observed in a small number of species, including some birds and a sea lion.

The review extends the Gradual Audiomotor Evolution hypothesis by explicitly including reward. The resulting GAER hypothesis proposes that human beat perception emerged through increasingly tight integration of evolutionarily old auditory, motor, predictive-timing and reward systems—not through the sudden appearance of an entirely new brain circuit.

“The difference between humans and other primates may be not only whether they can match the tempo of the music, but whether synchronising is intrinsically motivating and whether auditory, motor and reward systems work together strongly enough to stabilise prediction,” Honing explains.

The authors call for closely matched experiments across newborns, adults and other species, using more than neuropsychological methods that dominate current research. Behavioural, neurophysiological, genetic and computational approaches are needed to distinguish passive tracking of a stimulus from internally generated prediction of a beat.

“For musicians, finding the beat can feel trivial,” says Honing. “Scientifically, that apparent simplicity is exactly what makes it exciting: it offers a way to investigate how biology, development, culture and evolution meet in one of the core capacities underlying human musicality.”