Sensorimotor synchronization (SMS) is the rhythmic coordination of perception and action, commonly studied in the form of finger tapping to auditory stimuli. This review summarizes theories and findings from SMS research, covering intention, rate limits, negative mean asynchrony, variability, error correction models, perturbation studies, neural correlates, and SMS in musical contexts. The central issue is how perceptual information and internal processes enable SMS. Recent research suggests SMS is controlled by two error correction processes: phase correction (cognitive control) and period correction (subconscious mechanisms), which may involve different brain circuits. SMS involves coordinating motor rhythms with external rhythms, crucial in music. Musicians synchronize with ensemble members or conductors, and use metronomes or click tracks. Soldiers march to music, and dancers dance to it. People also generate internal temporal expectations when listening to music. While rhythmic synchronization is observed in some amphibians and insects, it is rare in primates and mammals, except in bonobos. Humans uniquely synchronize over wide tempi, possibly aiding music and language evolution. Laboratory studies often use finger tapping to auditory sequences, but other tasks involve different movements, modalities, and coordination modes. Two main theoretical approaches are information-processing and dynamic systems theories. Information-processing focuses on discrete time series, while dynamic systems on continuous movement. Control theory occupies a middle ground. SMS is often intentional, requiring coordination with external referents. Unintentional synchronization can occur, especially with similar periods. Rate limits for SMS with isochronous sequences are around 200–1,800 msec. Lower limits are set by biomechanical constraints, while upper limits relate to prediction difficulty. Antiphase tapping is harder, with higher IOI limits. Rate limits reveal constraints on temporal processing, with variability increasing with interval duration. Negative mean asynchrony (NMA) is a tendency for taps to precede tones. It is smaller in musically trained individuals and can be reduced by feedback or rhythmic complexity. NMA is not fully understood, with possible explanations including sensory accumulator models, perceptual underestimation, or asymmetric cost functions. NMA decreases with tempo and is influenced by individual differences. Variability in SMS is influenced by ITI and IOI durations, with lower variability at shorter intervals. Error correction reduces variability but slightly increases ITI variance. Antiphase tapping has lower variability at slow rates but becomes less stable at faster rates. Long-range correlations exist in both self-paced tapping and SMS, suggesting complex dynamics. Error correction models include phase correction (adjusting tap timing based on previous asynchrony) and period correction (adjusting timekeeper period based on IOI differences). These models are related, with phase correction being more peripheral than period correction. Both processes affect tap timing and asynchrony, with phase correction being more sensitive to tempo changes.Sensorimotor synchronization (SMS) is the rhythmic coordination of perception and action, commonly studied in the form of finger tapping to auditory stimuli. This review summarizes theories and findings from SMS research, covering intention, rate limits, negative mean asynchrony, variability, error correction models, perturbation studies, neural correlates, and SMS in musical contexts. The central issue is how perceptual information and internal processes enable SMS. Recent research suggests SMS is controlled by two error correction processes: phase correction (cognitive control) and period correction (subconscious mechanisms), which may involve different brain circuits. SMS involves coordinating motor rhythms with external rhythms, crucial in music. Musicians synchronize with ensemble members or conductors, and use metronomes or click tracks. Soldiers march to music, and dancers dance to it. People also generate internal temporal expectations when listening to music. While rhythmic synchronization is observed in some amphibians and insects, it is rare in primates and mammals, except in bonobos. Humans uniquely synchronize over wide tempi, possibly aiding music and language evolution. Laboratory studies often use finger tapping to auditory sequences, but other tasks involve different movements, modalities, and coordination modes. Two main theoretical approaches are information-processing and dynamic systems theories. Information-processing focuses on discrete time series, while dynamic systems on continuous movement. Control theory occupies a middle ground. SMS is often intentional, requiring coordination with external referents. Unintentional synchronization can occur, especially with similar periods. Rate limits for SMS with isochronous sequences are around 200–1,800 msec. Lower limits are set by biomechanical constraints, while upper limits relate to prediction difficulty. Antiphase tapping is harder, with higher IOI limits. Rate limits reveal constraints on temporal processing, with variability increasing with interval duration. Negative mean asynchrony (NMA) is a tendency for taps to precede tones. It is smaller in musically trained individuals and can be reduced by feedback or rhythmic complexity. NMA is not fully understood, with possible explanations including sensory accumulator models, perceptual underestimation, or asymmetric cost functions. NMA decreases with tempo and is influenced by individual differences. Variability in SMS is influenced by ITI and IOI durations, with lower variability at shorter intervals. Error correction reduces variability but slightly increases ITI variance. Antiphase tapping has lower variability at slow rates but becomes less stable at faster rates. Long-range correlations exist in both self-paced tapping and SMS, suggesting complex dynamics. Error correction models include phase correction (adjusting tap timing based on previous asynchrony) and period correction (adjusting timekeeper period based on IOI differences). These models are related, with phase correction being more peripheral than period correction. Both processes affect tap timing and asynchrony, with phase correction being more sensitive to tempo changes.