Attention, working memory, and inhibitory control in aging: Comparing amateur singers, instrumentalists, and active controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the ubiquity of musical activities, little is known about the specificity of their association with executive functions. In this cross-sectional study, we examined this relationship as a function of age. Our main hypotheses were that executive functions would decline in older age, that this relationship would be reduced in singers and instrumentalists compared to nonmusician active controls, and that the amount of musical experience would be more strongly associated with executive functions compared to the specific type of activity. A sample of 122 cognitively healthy adults aged 20-88 years was recruited, consisting of 39 amateur singers, 43 amateur instrumentalists, and 40 nonmusician controls. Tests of auditory processing speed, auditory selective attention, auditory and visual inhibitory control, and auditory working memory were administered. The results confirm a negative relationship between age and executive functions. While musicians' advantages were found in selective attention, inhibitory control, and auditory working memory, these advantages were specific rather than global. Furthermore, most of these advantages were independent of age and experience. Finally, there were only limited differences between instrumentalists and singers, suggesting that the relationship between music-making activities and executive functions may be, at least in part, general as opposed to activity-specific.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".