MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Current Advances in the Cognitive Neuroscience of Music

2009· review· en· W2129061731 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel J. Levitin, Anna K. Tirovolas

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMusic psychologyCognitionCognitive neuroscienceContext (archaeology)Cognitive scienceCognitive psychologyPerceptionMusicalVariety (cybernetics)Music and emotionNeuroanatomyNeuroscienceMusicologyMusic historyMusic educationComputer scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of music perception and cognition is one of the oldest topics in experimental psychology. The last 20 years have seen an increased interest in understanding the functional neuroanatomy of music processing in humans, using a variety of technologies including fMRI, PET, ERP, MEG, and lesion studies. We review current findings in the context of a rich intellectual history of research, organized by the cognitive systems underlying different aspects of human musical behavior. We pay special attention to the perception of components of musical processing, musical structure, laterality effects, cultural issues, links between music and movement, emotional processing, expertise, and the amusias. Current trends are noted, such as the increased interest in evolutionary origins of music and comparisons of music and language. The review serves to demonstrate the important role that music can play in informing broad theories of higher order cognitive processes such as music in humans.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.335
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.121 · 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

Citations281
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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