Development of infant mismatch responses to auditory pattern changes between 2 and 4 months old
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to process speech and music, the auditory cortex must learn to process patterns of sounds. Our previous studies showed that with a stream consisting of a repeating (standard) sound, younger infants show an increase in the amplitude of a positive slow wave in response to occasional changes (deviants) in pitch or duration, whereas older infants show a faster negative response that resembles mismatch negativity (MMN) in adults (Trainor et al., 2001, 2003; He et al., 2007). MMN reflects an automatic change-detection process that does not require attention, conscious awareness or behavioural response for its elicitation (Picton et al., 2000; Näätänen et al., 2007). It is an important tool for understanding auditory perception because MMN reflects a change-detection mechanism, and not simply that repetition of a stimulus results in a refractory state of sensory neural circuits while occasional changes to a new sound activate new non-refractory neural circuits (Näätänen et al., 2005). For example, MMN is elicited by a change in the pattern of a repeating note sequence, even when no new notes are introduced that could activate new sensory circuits (Alain et al., 1994, 1999;Schröger et al., 1996). In the present study, we show that in response to a change in the pattern of two repeating tones, MMN in 4-month-olds remains robust whereas the 2-month-old response does not. This indicates that the MMN response to a change in pattern at 4 months reflects the activation of a change-detection mechanism similarly as in adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".