More Evidence That Ensemble Music Training Influences Children’s Neurobehavioral Correlates of Auditory Executive Attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the neurocognitive correlates of auditory executive attention in low socioeconomic status 9-12-year-old children-with and without training in a social music program (OrKidstra). Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded during an auditory Go/NoGo task utilizing 1100 Hz and 2000 Hz pure tones. We examined Go trials, which required attention, tone discrimination and executive response control. We measured Reaction Times (RTs), accuracy and amplitude of relevant ERP signatures: N100-N200 complex, P300, and Late Potentials (LP). Children also completed a screening test for auditory sensory sensitivity and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-IV) to assess verbal comprehension. OrKidstra children had faster RTs and larger ERP amplitudes to the Go tone. Specifically, compared to their comparison counterparts, they showed more negative-going polarities bilaterally for N1-N2 and LP signatures across the scalp and larger P300s in parietal and right temporal electrodes; some enhancements were lateralized (i.e., left frontal, and right central and parietal electrodes). Because auditory screening yielded no between-group differences, results suggest that music training did not enhance sensory processing but perceptual and attentional skills, possibly shifting from top-down to more bottom-up processes. Findings have implications for socially based music training interventions in school, specifically for socioeconomically disadvantaged children.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".