A sensitive period for musical training: contributions of age of onset and cognitive abilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The experiences we engage in during childhood can stay with us well into our adult years. The idea of a sensitive period--a window during maturation when our brains are most influenced by behavior--has been proposed. Work from our laboratory has shown that early-trained musicians (ET) performed better on visual-motor and auditory-motor synchronization tasks than late-trained musicians (LT), even when matched for total musical experience. Although the groups of musicians showed no cognitive differences, working memory scores correlated with task performance. In this study, we have replicated these findings in a larger sample of musicians and included a group of highly educated nonmusicians (NM). Participants performed six woodblock rhythms of varying levels of metrical complexity and completed cognitive subtests measuring verbal abilities, working memory, and pattern recognition. Working memory scores correlated with task performance across all three groups. Interestingly, verbal abilities were stronger among the NM, while nonverbal abilities were stronger among musicians. These findings are discussed in context of the sensitive period hypothesis as well as the debate surrounding cognitive differences between musicians and NM.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".