The Effect of Piano Education on Visual Memory
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research, the aim is to determine the effect of piano education on visual memory. One of the quantitative research methods, experimental research design, was used in the study, and the study group was determined with the purposive sampling method. The short-term visual memory of the students aged from 8 to 12 (experimental n=36, control n=42) in the study group was measured with the Benton Visual Retention Test F Form. To determine the effect of the practice for the experimental and control groups, t-tests and two-way analysis of variance (mixed-design ANOVA) were performed for the pretest and posttest. The short-term visual retention test pre-test and post-test results of the experimental group students who took private piano lessons and the control group students who did not take piano lessons were analyzed regarding their age, and it was determined that the short-term visual memory of the experimental group students was better than the control group. The research is considered significant, as it will contribute to the disciplines dealing with child development, piano teachers and other researchers working on this subject.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it