Children's event-related potentials of auditory selective attention vary with their socioeconomic status.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research suggests a link between socioeconomic status (SES) and brain processes in children, but direct evidence from neuroimaging is scarce. The authors investigated the relationships among SES, performance, and the neural correlates of auditory selective attention, by comparing event-related potentials (ERPs) in lower- and higher-SES preadolescent children during a task in which they attended to two types of pure tones but ignored two other types. Our hypothesis was that, at comparable performance levels, higher-SES children ignore distracters (the unattended, irrelevant tones) while lower-SES children attend equally to distracters and to targets (the attended, relevant tones). The authors found that ERP waveform differences between attended and unattended tones (Nd, difference negativity) were significant in the higher-SES but not in the lower-SES group. However, the groups did not differ in reaction times or accuracy. Electroencephalographic power analysis revealed a differential pattern of theta activity concomitant with irrelevant tones for the two groups, indicating that although they performed similarly the children from these groups recruited different neural processes. Lower-SES children, the authors suggest, deployed supplementary resources to also attend to irrelevant information.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".