MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024632938 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v1n2p2

The Effects of Background Auditory Interference and Extraversion on Creative and Cognitive Task Performance

2009· article· en· W2024632938 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tomas Chamorro‐Premuzic, Viren Swami, Avegayle Terrado, Adrian Furnham

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCreativity in Education and Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyExtraversion and introversionTask (project management)CognitionCognitive psychologySentencePersonalitySilenceActive listeningElementary cognitive taskTest (biology)AudiologyBig Five personality traitsSocial psychologyCommunicationLinguisticsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined the effects of different types of background auditory stimuli on the cognitive and creative task performance of introverts and extraverts. A sample of 77 high-school students completed two cognitive tasks (Baddeley Reasoning Test and sentence-completion) and a creative task (Alternate-Uses Test of divergent thinking) under one of four different background auditory conditions (speech, noise, music, or silence), as well as being assessed on Extraversion. Results showed no significant main or interactive effects of background auditory stimuli and personality on either cognitive task performance. However, there was a significant interactive effect on creative performance, with extraverts performing better in the presence of music than introverts. Consistencies and discrepancies with past literature are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.371 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Psychological StudiesSame topicCreativity in Education and NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207