MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Statistical learning of speech, not music, in congenital amusia

2012· article· en· W2153543476 on OpenAlexafffund
Isabelle Peretz, Jenny R. Saffran, Daniele Schön, Nathalie Gosselin

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsInternational Laboratory for Brain, Music and Sound Research
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyAudiologySpeech recognitionComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The acquisition of both speech and music uses general principles: learners extract statistical regularities present in the environment. Yet, individuals who suffer from congenital amusia (commonly called tone-deafness) have experienced lifelong difficulties in acquiring basic musical skills, while their language abilities appear essentially intact. One possible account for this dissociation between music and speech is that amusics lack normal experience with music. If given appropriate exposure, amusics might be able to acquire basic musical abilities. To test this possibility, a group of 11 adults with congenital amusia, and their matched controls, were exposed to a continuous stream of syllables or tones for 21-minute. Their task was to try to identify three-syllable nonsense words or three-tone motifs having an identical statistical structure. The results of five experiments show that amusics can learn novel words as easily as controls, whereas they systematically fail on musical materials. Thus, inappropriate musical exposure cannot fully account for the musical disorder. Implications of the results for the domain specificity of statistical learning are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207