Does Music Training Improve Inhibition Control in Children? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inhibition control is an essential executive function during children’s development, underpinning self-regulation and the acquisition of social and language abilities. This executive function is intensely engaged in music training while learning an instrument, a complex multisensory task requiring monitoring motor performance and auditory stream prioritization. This novel meta-analysis examined music-based training on inhibition control in children. Records from 1980 to 2023 yielded 22 longitudinal studies with controls (N = 1734), including 8 RCTs and 14 others. A random-effects meta-analysis showed that music training improved inhibition control (medium ES) in the RCTs and the superset of twenty-two longitudinal studies (small-to-medium ES). Music training plays a privileged role compared to other activities (sports, visual arts, drama) in improving children’s executive functioning, with a particular effect on inhibition control. We recommend music training for complementing education and as a clinical tool focusing on inhibition control remediation (e.g., in autism and ADHD).
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".