Relationship between Intelligence Quotient and Musical Ability in Children with Cochlear Implantation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Children with cochlear implants (CIs) may experience few opportunities for positive musical experiences, and musical perception is therefore often not sufficiently developed. This paper investigates and discusses the relationship between intelligence quotient (IQ) and musical ability in children with CIs compared with children with normal hearing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a comparative analytical study conducted in 48 children with unilateral CI and 48 normal-hearing children, 6-8 years of age, with 'normal' IQ and no formal music training. The average IQ score in the experimental and control groups were 105.41 and 106.31, respectively. No statistically significant differences were detected between Raven's IQ scores in both groups. Data were collected by administering Raven's Colored Progressive Matrices IQ Tests and the Montreal Battery of Evaluation of Musical Abilities (MBEMA) Test, consisting of scale, contour, interval, rhythm, and memory sections. RESULTS: Mean total MBEMA score in the experimental and control groups was 58.93 and 72.16 (out of 100), respectively. Significant differences were evident between scores of children with CIs in comparison with their normal-hearing peers (P≤0.001). A remarkable direct correlation between IQ and musical scores in both the control (r≥0.38) and experimental (r≥0.37) groups was observed. CONCLUSION: IQ has a noticeable effect on music processing and facilitates the perception of various musical elements. With regard to the mutual relationship between IQ and musical skills, this study illustrates the advantage of determining music perception scores and highlights the importance of appropriate musical intervention in order to enhance auditory neural plasticity, especially in children with cochlear implantation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".