A concert for babies: Attentional, affective, and motor responses in an infant audience
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
Many of our most powerful musical experiences are shared with others, and researchers have increasingly investigated responses to music in group contexts. Though musical performances for infants are growing in popularity, most research on infants' responses to live music has focused on solitary caregiver-infant pairs. Here, we report infants' attentional, affective, and motor responses to live music as audience members. Two groups of caregiver-infant (6-18 months) pairs (50 total) watched a short musical performance with two song styles - lullaby and playsong. Caregivers were instructed to watch passively or interactively. The playsong captured more infant attention and, especially in the interactive condition, elicited more infant smiles. Notably, infant attention was more coordinated with their own caregiver than a random caregiver, and infants with no experience attending group musical events in the past were especially attentive to the performance. Infants were more likely to generate movements when parents remained still. Overall, infants' responses to live musical performance in an audience were influenced by song style, caregiver behavior, and their own musical histories. A video abstract of this article can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q61qnDMW8dU. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Infants' responses to live musical performances are shaped by the music, by their caregivers, and by their own musical histories During a concert for babies, a playsong more effectively elicited infant attention and smiles than a lullaby, especially when caregivers were interactive Infant attention was more coordinated with their own caregiver than with other caregivers watching the same show.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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