MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mapping Tonal Hierarchy in the Brain

2021· article· en· W3140543382 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah A. Sauvé, Alex Cho, Benjamin Rich Zendel

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyContext (archaeology)Tone (literature)Goodness of fitDegree (music)HierarchyNeural correlates of consciousnessSpeech recognitionAudiologyMathematicsNeuroscienceComputer scienceStatisticsLinguisticsPhysicsAcousticsCognitionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Western tonal music, pitches are organized hierarchically based on their perceived fit in a specific tonal context. This hierarchy forms scales that are commonly used in Western tonal music. The hierarchical nature of tonal structure is well established behaviourally; however, the neural underpinnings are largely unknown. In this study, EEG data and goodness-of-fit ratings were collected from 34 participants who listened to an arpeggio followed by a probe tone, where the probe tone could be any chromatic scale degree and the context any of the major keys. Goodness-of-fit ratings corresponded to the classic tonal hierarchy. N1, P2 and the Early Right Anterior Negativity (ERAN) were significantly modulated by scale degree. Furthermore, neural marker amplitudes and latencies were significantly correlated with similar magnitude to both pitch height and goodness-of-fit ratings. This is different from the clearer divide between pitch height correlating with early neural markers (100-200 ms) and tonal hierarchy correlating with late neural markers (200-1000 ms) reported by Sankaran et al. (2020) and Quiroga-Martinez et al. (2019). Finally, individual differences were greater than any main effects detected when pooling participants and brain-behavior correlations vary widely (i.e. r = -0.8 to 0.8).

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroscienceSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207