Electrophysiological Evidence of Enhanced Auditory Retrieval in Musically Trained Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Musical practice enhances auditory processing in children as related to pitch perception or tonal discrimination. The purpose of this study was to examine whether these benefits also occur in auditory working memory by influencing its neural substrates. Two groups of children aged between 7 and 11 years old were compared using an auditory retrieval task with three conditions: frequency retrieval, duration retrieval, and control. Musician children had weekly private violin or cello lessons for at least 14 months, whereas non-musician children had no musical training. Results showed that musicians’ scores on the Gordon’s Primary Measure of Music Audiation test were significantly higher than non-musicians’ scores in the rhythm and tone conditions. On memory tasks, musicians outperformed non-musicians in frequency retrieval but not in duration retrieval. Differences in retrieval performance were associated with a larger P200-like waveform over frontal sites in musicians and a larger N400-like waveform over centro-parietal sites in non-musicians. A source current density analysis revealed differences in frontal activities between musicians and non-musicians, suggesting that musical training influenced the neural mechanisms supporting auditory retrieval in children. These results are in agreement with previous studies that showed a better auditory memory in musicians. Furthermore, they suggest that in children, the effect of musical training can be strong enough to positively influence higher-order auditory memory processes such as active retrieval, as well as their neural correlates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".