MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effects of Context on Electrophysiological Response to Musical Accents

2009· article· en· W2097120022 on OpenAlexafffund
Caroline Palmėr, Lisa R. Jewett, Karsten Steinhauer

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsTimbreMelodyMismatch negativityContext (archaeology)PsychologyEvent-related potentialTone (literature)Pitch (Music)Cognitive psychologyElectrophysiologyAudiologyCommunicationMusicalNeuroscienceElectroencephalographyPerceptionLinguisticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Listeners' aesthetic and emotional responses to music typically occur in the context of long musical passages that contain structures defined in terms of the events that precede them. We describe an electrophysiological study of listeners' brain responses to musical accents that coincided in longer musical sequences. Musically trained listeners performed a timbre-change detection task in which a single-tone timbre change was positioned within 4-bar melodies composed of 350-ms tones to coincide or not with melodic contour accents and temporal accents (induced with temporal gaps). Event-related potential responses to (task-relevant) attended timbre changes elicited an early negativity (MMN/N2b) around 200 ms and a late positive component around 350 ms (P300), reflecting updating of the timbre change in working memory. The amplitudes of both components changed systematically across the sequence, consistent with expectancy-based context effects. Furthermore, melodic contour changes modulated the MMN/N2b response (but not the P300) to timbre changes in later sequence positions. In contrast, task-irrelevant temporal gaps elicited an MMN that was not modulated by position within the context; absence of a P300 indicated that temporal-gap accents were not updated in working memory. Listeners' neural responses to musical structure changed systematically as sequential predictability and listeners' expectations changed across the melodic context.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences→Same topicNeuroscience and Music Perception→French-language works237,207→