Influence of auditory working memory in discriminating children with good musical abilities from children with poor musical abilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: Musical abilities are associated with the perception of complex acoustic features in an auditory scene, which requires a good load of cognitive processing. Musical sleepers (individuals with good musical abilities without formal music training) were proven to be in adults, and their enhanced cognitive abilities were established, but such a phenomenon in children is not explored yet. Hence, the present study was carried out to assess auditory working memory (AWM) abilities in children with widespread musical abilities. Materials and Methods: Twenty-nine children within the age range of 7–13 years participated in the study. The children’s musical abilities were assessed using the Montreal Battery for Evaluation of Musical Abilities and scores were recorded. Sixteen and thirteen children were categorized into individuals with good and poor musical abilities, respectively, based on the 50th percentile score as the cutoff. The tests for AWM, such as forward span, backward span, and N-back, were administered. Results: Point biserial correlation showed that groups had a significant positive association with forward span ( r = 0.65; P = 0.00), backward span test ( r = 0.41; P = 0.02), and N-back test ( r = 0.70; P = 0.00). Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated a significant main effect of groups, and post hoc analysis showed that children with good musical abilities outperformed the ones with poor musical abilities in all three working memory measures. Further, Fisher’s discriminant analysis revealed that the N-back test, with discriminant coefficient of 0.75, is the best auditory-cognitive predictor of musical abilities in children. Conclusions: Children who had no musical training exhibited better musical ability. This may be mediated by improved AWM, but an additional investigation into the relationship between musical aptitude and other psychophysical abilities in children without musical training is necessary.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".