Infant repetition effects and change detection: Are they related to adaptive skills?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repetition effects and change detection response have been proposed as neuro-electrophysiological correlates of fundamental learning processes. As such, they could be a good predictor of brain maturation and cognitive development. We recorded high density EEG in 71 healthy infants (32 females) aged between 3 and 9 months, while they listened to vowel sequences (standard /a/a/a/i/ [80%] and deviant /a/a/a/a/ [20%]). Adaptive skills, a surrogate of cognitive development, were measured via the parent form of the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System Second Edition (ABAS-II). Cortical auditory-evoked potentials (CAEPs) analyses, time-frequency analyses and a statistical approach using linear mixed models (LMMs) and linear regression models were performed. Age and adaptive skills were tested as predictors. Age modulation of repetition effects and change detection response was observed in theta (3-5 Hz), alpha (5-10 Hz) and high gamma (80-90 Hz) oscillations and in all CAEPs. Moreover, adaptive skills modulation of repetition effects was evidenced in theta (3-5 Hz), high gamma oscillations (80-90 Hz), N250/P350 peak-to-peak amplitude and P350 latency. Finally, adaptive skills modulation of change detection response was observed in the N250/P350 peak-to-peak amplitude. Our results confirm that repetition effects and change detection response evolve with age. Moreover, our results suggest that repetition effects and change detection response vary according to adaptive skills displayed by infants during the first year of life, demonstrating their predictive value for neurodevelopment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".