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 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".