MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4233022459 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/xfrve

Aging effects on neural entrainment to a musical beat

2019· preprint· en· W4233022459 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah A. Sauvé, Emily Bolt, Sylvie Nozaradan, Benjamin Rich Zendel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhythmBeat (acoustics)AudiologyEntrainment (biomusicology)ElectroencephalographyActive listeningHarmonicsAcousticsPsychologySpeech recognitionCommunicationMedicinePhysicsNeuroscienceComputer scienceVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When listening to music, the brain entrains to the musical rhythm and produces neural activity at the beat frequency. Younger (<35) and older (>60) adults listened to slow (1.25 Hz) and fast (2.5 Hz) syncopated and non-syncopated rhythms while intermittently performing a tapping task. EEG was recorded and frequency tagging was employed to analyze meter-related and meter-unrelated frequencies elicited by the rhythms. The meter-related frequencies included the beat frequency (BF), its first three harmonics (H1-H3) and the frequency of the whole pattern, or cycle rate (CR) while the meter-unrelated frequencies included the remaining harmonics of the CR up to the eleventh harmonic. Age effects were observed at the BF, where younger adults had larger amplitudes than older adults and at the CR. At the fast tempo, older adults did not differentiate between the CR, the BF and H3. Together, these results suggest older adults experience a breakdown of selective encoding at the fast tempo and reliance on high-level information, exhibiting aspects of both the inhibition and compensation theories of aging.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeuroscience and Music Perception→French-language works237,207→