Experience Changes How Emotion in Music Is Judged: Evidence from Children Listening with Bilateral Cochlear Implants, Bimodal Devices, and Normal Hearing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children using unilateral cochlear implants abnormally rely on tempo rather than mode cues to distinguish whether a musical piece is happy or sad. This led us to question how this judgment is affected by the type of experience in early auditory development. We hypothesized that judgments of the emotional content of music would vary by the type and duration of access to sound in early life due to deafness, altered perception of musical cues through new ways of using auditory prostheses bilaterally, and formal music training during childhood. Seventy-five participants completed the Montreal Emotion Identification Test. Thirty-three had normal hearing (aged 6.6 to 40.0 years) and 42 children had hearing loss and used bilateral auditory prostheses (31 bilaterally implanted and 11 unilaterally implanted with contralateral hearing aid use). Reaction time and accuracy were measured. Accurate judgment of emotion in music was achieved across ages and musical experience. Musical training accentuated the reliance on mode cues which developed with age in the normal hearing group. Degrading pitch cues through cochlear implant-mediated hearing induced greater reliance on tempo cues, but mode cues grew in salience when at least partial acoustic information was available through some residual hearing in the contralateral ear. Finally, when pitch cues were experimentally distorted to represent cochlear implant hearing, individuals with normal hearing (including those with musical training) switched to an abnormal dependence on tempo cues. The data indicate that, in a western culture, access to acoustic hearing in early life promotes a preference for mode rather than tempo cues which is enhanced by musical training. The challenge to these preferred strategies during cochlear implant hearing (simulated and real), regardless of musical training, suggests that access to pitch cues for children with hearing loss must be improved by preservation of residual hearing and improvements in cochlear implant technology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".