Development of consonance preferences in Western listeners.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many scholars consider preferences for consonance, as defined by Western music theorists, to be based primarily on biological factors, while others emphasize experiential factors, notably the nature of musical exposure. Cross-cultural experiments suggest that consonance preferences are shaped by musical experience, implying that preferences should emerge or become stronger over development for individuals in Western cultures. However, little is known about this developmental trajectory. We measured preferences for the consonance of simultaneous sounds and related acoustic properties in children and adults to characterize their developmental course and dependence on musical experience. In Study 1, adults and children 6 to 10 years of age rated their liking of simultaneous tone combinations (dyads) and affective vocalizations. Preferences for consonance increased with age and were predicted by changing preferences for harmonicity-the degree to which a sound's frequencies are multiples of a common fundamental frequency-but not by evaluations of beating-fluctuations in amplitude that occur when frequencies are close but not identical, producing the sensation of acoustic roughness. In Study 2, musically trained adults and 10-year-old children also rated the same stimuli. Age and musical training were associated with enhanced preference for consonance. Both measures of experience were associated with an enhanced preference for harmonicity, but were unrelated to evaluations of beating stimuli. The findings are consistent with cross-cultural evidence and the effects of musicianship in Western adults in linking Western musical experience to preferences for consonance and harmonicity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".