An itsy bitsy audience: Live performance facilitates infants’ attention and heart rate synchronization.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among our most powerful experiences are those we share with others.Researchers have increasingly sought to investigate responses to socially potent stimuli, such as music, in contexts that are more naturalistic than a traditional psychology lab.Here, we investigated behavioral and physiological responses to either a live concert or a perceptually-matched recorded playback on a naïve audience: infants.Two audiences of 6-to 14-month-old infants (N = ~30 each, total N = 61) watched a musical performance live in a specialized research facility/concert hall (McMaster University LIVELab).Two additional 6-to 14-month-old infant audiences (N = ~30 each, total N = 59) watched a recorded playback of the same performance in the same auditorium.A third group (same age range, N = 27) watched the recorded playback individually on their family's device at home.Infants were more engaged in the live performance than the recorded playback, indicated by more overall attention and more sustained attention, and physiological synchrony.Infants at home visually attended at levels comparable to infants in the live performance but their attention was sustained for shorter bouts.Findings suggest that performer-audience interactions and social context play an important role in facilitating attention and coordinating emotional responses to musical performances early in life.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".