Examining infants' preferences for tempo in lullabies and playsongs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caregivers around the world sing to their infants. Infants not only prefer to listen to infant-directed singing over adult-directed singing, but infant-directed singing also serves a function, communicating affective information to preverbal infants to aid in adjusting arousal levels. Pitch variation has previously been identified as one performance feature that may help to convey the message. Earlier research has indicated that infants' pitch preferences are context dependent, suggesting that infants are tuned in to the communicative intent of infant-directed singing. However, there are several other performance-based features present in infant-directed singing that may also contribute to the affective message. The current study examined the role of context on infants' tempo preferences in sung playsongs and lullabies. Using a head-turn preference procedure, we measured 24 preverbal infants' natural preferences for foreign language playsongs and lullabies as a function of tempo. Infants showed a preference for fast over slow tempo playsongs, but no such context dependent preference was found within lullabies. Results partially support the role of tempo as a communicative feature of infant directed singing.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".