Music training and inhibitory control: a multidimensional model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training programs aimed to improve cognitive skills have either yielded mixed results or remain to be validated. The limited benefits of such regimens are largely attributable to weak understanding of (1) how (and which) interventions provide the most cognitive improvements; and (2) how brain networks and neural mechanisms that underlie specific cognitive abilities can be modified selectively. Studies indicate that music training leads to robust and long-lasting benefits to behavior. Importantly, behavioral advantages conferred by music extend beyond perceptual abilities to even nonauditory functions, such as inhibitory control (IC) and its neural correlates. Alternative forms of arts engagement or brain training do not appear to yield such enhancements, which suggests that music uniquely taps into brain networks subserving a variety of auditory as well as domain-general mechanisms such as IC. To account for such widespread benefits of music training, we propose a framework of transfer effects characterized by three dimensions: level of processing, nature of the transfer, and involvement of executive functions. We suggest that transfer of skills is mediated through modulation of general cognitive processes, in particular IC. We believe that this model offers a viable framework to test the extent and limitations of music-related changes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".