Younger versus older infants’ use of prosody-like boundaries to locate musical phrases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spoken language, particularly of the infant-directed variety, clauses are marked with prosodic cues, such as final lengthening and pitch resets at boundaries (e.g., Soderstrom et al., 2008). Though prosody is specific to language, similar acoustic cues mark phrase boundaries in music, and infants are sensitive to the correlation of these cues at musical boundaries (Jusczyk and Krumhansl, 1993). In the present study, we ask whether younger (4-month-old) and older (16-month-old) infants can use prosody-like boundary cues to facilitate recognition of musical phrases. In a musical extension of Soderstrom et al. (2005), infants were familiarized with one of two brief melodies, then were tested using the head-turn preference procedure on their ability to recognize a phrase versus phrase-straddling excerpt from the familiarization melody when it is embedded in a new musical passage. Preliminary results suggest that younger infants show a familiarity preference for the test melody containing a phrase from the familiarized melody, while older infants do not discriminate between the test item types. This suggests that young infants use prosody-like cues to group acoustic stimuli in a domain-general way, whereas older infants may not.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".