Events versus time in the perception of nonadjacent key relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing the duration of an intervening key has a negative effect on memory for the original, nonadjacent key. Evidence suggests the recollection of a key only remains for 20 seconds after modulation to a new key section. But factors other than time might influence the perception of nonadjacent key relationships. By using a probe-cadence paradigm, this study tested whether time or the number of musical events (chords) determined the deterioration in memory of the global effect of nonadjacent keys. Stimuli were constructed in three parts: (a) a major key was established through a standard chord progression; (b) an intervening section, either 6 or 9 seconds in duration and formed from either four or six chords, was introduced in 12 possible keys; and (c) a short pause was followed by the probe cadence in the original key—that is, the key at (a). Fifty-one participants were asked to estimate the amount of harmonic closure they perceived at the probe cadence. Results confirmed previous findings of significant negative effects of time on the residual influence of the nonadjacent key. However, there were no significant effects of number of events. This provides evidence that it is the length of time, not the number of musical events in an intervening modulation that determines the recollection of the original key.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".