MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393669109 · doi:10.56883/aijmt.2021.140

Using music-adapted technology to explore Bruscia’s clinical techniques introduced in autism research: Pilot study

2020· article· en· W4393669109 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley Kurkjian, Kathleen Skinner, Heidi Ahonen

Bibliographic record

VenueApproaches An Interdisciplinary Journal of Music Therapy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityGrand River Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutismPsychologyComputer scienceDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This pilot research investigated eight most commonly used Bruscia’s (1987) clinical improvisation techniques utilised in music therapy with autistic clients: imitating, reflecting, synchronising, extending, symbolising, holding, incorporating, and rhythmic grounding (Skinner, Kurkjian & Ahonen, 2020). The techniques were explored with research participants (music students), by isolating and implementing each technique in eight short improvisations. Improvisations were recorded using LogicPro connected to MalletKAT instruments. Improvisations were analysed using music-adapted technology, the MIDI Toolbox designed for MATLAB, a multi-paradigm numerical computing environment and proprietary programming language developed by MathWorks, and the Music Therapy Toolbox (MTTB) (Erkkilä, Lartillot, Luck, Riikkila & Toiviainen, 2004). In addition, participants provided their subjective experience of each improvisation in a questionnaire format. The research questions included: 1) How will Bruscia’s eight fundamental clinical improvisation techniques be represented in MATLAB/MTTB in terms of both individual ways of playing and musical relationships? 2) How will the use of each isolated improvisation technique impact the participant’s experience of musical connection, influence, and expression? Through the combination of musical analysis and qualitative thematic analysis, insights relating to the effective implementation and purposeful use of imitation, synchronisation, holding, and rhythmic grounding were realised. The musical data generated from MATLAB/MTTB demonstrated how researchers implemented the techniques and trends in the participant’s playing. In addition, the questionnaires provided insights into how each technique influenced the participant’s ability to express and connect, as well as their perception of the researchers’ musical influence. These results may be used to inform both music therapists and future related research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.677
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApproaches An Interdisciplinary Journal of Music TherapySame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207