MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518033918 · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01021

Musicianship and Tone Language Experience Are Associated with Differential Changes in Brain Signal Variability

2016· article· en· W2518033918 on OpenAlexaff
Stefanie Hutka, Sarah M. Carpentier, Gavin M. Bidelman, Sylvain Moreno, Anthony R. McIntosh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTone (literature)Active listeningAuditory cortexPerceptionSpeech processingSpeech perceptionAuditory perceptionAudiologyCognitive psychologyCommunicationLinguisticsSpeech recognitionNeuroscienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Musicianship has been associated with auditory processing benefits. It is unclear, however, whether pitch processing experience in nonmusical contexts, namely, speaking a tone language, has comparable associations with auditory processing. Studies comparing the auditory processing of musicians and tone language speakers have shown varying degrees of between-group similarity with regard to perceptual processing benefits and, particularly, nonlinguistic pitch processing. To test whether the auditory abilities honed by musicianship or speaking a tone language differentially impact the neural networks supporting nonlinguistic pitch processing (relative to timbral processing), we employed a novel application of brain signal variability (BSV) analysis. BSV is a metric of information processing capacity and holds great potential for understanding the neural underpinnings of experience-dependent plasticity. Here, we measured BSV in electroencephalograms of musicians, tone language-speaking nonmusicians, and English-speaking nonmusicians (controls) during passive listening of music and speech sound contrasts. Although musicians showed greater BSV across the board, each group showed a unique spatiotemporal distribution in neural network engagement: Controls had greater BSV for speech than music; tone language-speaking nonmusicians showed the opposite effect; musicians showed similar BSV for both domains. Collectively, results suggest that musical and tone language pitch experience differentially affect auditory processing capacity within the cerebral cortex. However, information processing capacity is graded: More experience with pitch is associated with greater BSV when processing this cue. Higher BSV in musicians may suggest increased information integration within the brain networks subserving speech and music, which may be related to their well-documented advantages on a wide variety of speech-related tasks.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207