Music Skills and the Expressive Interpretation of Music in Children with Williams-Beuren Syndrome: Pitch, Rhythm, Melodic Imagery, Phrasing, and Musical Affect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studied music in 14 children and adolescents with Williams-Beuren syndrome (WBS), a multi-system neurodevelopmental disorder, and 14 age-matched controls. Five aspects of music were tested. There were two tests of core music domains, pitch discrimination and rhythm discrimination. There were two tests of musical expressiveness, melodic imagery and phrasing. There was one test of musical interpretation, the ability to identify the emotional resonance of a musical excerpt. Music scores were analyzed by means of logistic regressions that modeled outcome (higher or lower music scores) as a function of group membership (WBS or Control) and cognitive age. Compared to age peers, children with WBS had similar levels of musical expressiveness, but were less able to discriminate pitch and rhythm, or to attach a semantic interpretation to emotion in music. Music skill did not vary with cognitive age. Musical strength in individuals with WBS involves not so much formal analytic skill in pitch and rhythm discrimination as a strong engagement with music as a means of expression, play, and, perhaps, improvisation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".