Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ordinary listeners, including infants, easily distinguish consonant from dissonant pitch combinations and consider the former more pleasant than the latter. The preference for consonance over dissonance was tested in a patient, I.R., who suffers from music perception and memory disorders as a result of bilateral lesions to the auditory cortex. In Experiment 1, I.R. was found to be unable to distinguish consonant from dissonant versions of musical excerpts taken from the classical repertoire by rating their pleasantness. I.R.'s indifference to dissonance was not due to a loss of all affective responses to music, however, since she rated the same excerpts as happy or sad, as normal controls do. In Experiment 2, I.R.'s lack of responsiveness to varying degrees of dissonance was replicated with chord sequences which had been used in a previous study using PET, in examining emotional responses to dissonance. A CT scan of I.R.'s brain was co-registered with the PET activation data from normal volunteers. Comparison of I.R.'s scan with the PET data revealed that the damaged areas overlapped with the regions identified to be involved in the perceptual analysis of the musical input, but not with the paralimbic regions involved in affective responses. Taken together, the findings suggest that dissonance may be computed bilaterally in the superior temporal gyri by specialized mechanisms prior to its emotional interpretation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".