MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impaired learning of event frequencies in tone deafness

2012· article· en· W2157776627 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Psyche Loui, Gottfried Schlaug

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMelodyTone (literature)AudiologyPsychologyContrast (vision)Musical toneMusicalPitch (Music)MedicineNeurosciencePerceptionComputer scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Musical knowledge is ubiquitous, effortless, and implicitly acquired all over the world via exposure to musical materials in one's culture. In contrast, one group of individuals who show insensitivity to music, specifically the inability to discriminate pitches and melodies, is the tone-deaf. In this study, we asked whether difficulties in pitch and melody discrimination among the tone-deaf could be related to learning difficulties, and, if so, what processes of learning might be affected in the tone-deaf. We investigated the learning of frequency information in a new musical system in tone-deaf individuals and matched controls. Results showed significantly impaired learning abilities in frequency matching in the tone-deaf. This impairment was positively correlated with the severity of tone deafness as assessed by the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Amusia. Taken together, the results suggest that tone deafness is characterized by an impaired ability to acquire frequency information from pitched materials in the sound environment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207