MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027772557 · doi:10.1196/annals.1284.061

Effects of Musical Training on the Auditory Cortex in Children

2003· review· en· W2027772557 on OpenAlexaff
Laurel J. Trainor, Antoine J. Shahin, Larry E. Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAuditory cortexAudiologyMusicalViolinNeuroplasticityCognitive neuroscience of musicPianoNeuroscienceMedicineAcousticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several studies of the effects of musical experience on sound representations in the auditory cortex are reviewed. Auditory evoked potentials are compared in response to pure tones, violin tones, and piano tones in adult musicians versus nonmusicians as well as in 4- to 5-year-old children who have either had or not had extensive musical experience. In addition, the effects of auditory frequency discrimination training in adult nonmusicians on auditory evoked potentials are examined. It was found that the P2-evoked response is larger in both adult and child musicians than in nonmusicians and that auditory training enhances this component in nonmusician adults. The results suggest that the P2 is particularly neuroplastic and that the effects of musical experience can be seen early in development. They also suggest that although the effects of musical training on cortical representations may be greater if training begins in childhood, the adult brain is also open to change. These results are discussed with respect to potential benefits of early musical training as well as potential benefits of musical experience in aging.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations138
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207