Musicianship and Tone Language Experience Are Associated with Differential Changes in Brain Signal Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".