Ear to the ground! socioeconomic status, environmental stress, and the neural substrate of selective attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reanalyzed data originally published by Berman and Friedman (1995), who recorded event related potentials (ERPs) while children and adults with low, medium, and high socioeconomic status (SES) detected oddball auditory targets (tones and consonant-vowel sequences) among distractors. The ERP differential measuring how much attention was allocated to the targets vs. distractors increased significantly with SES, independently of age. To explain these findings, we integrate the ear to the ground hypothesis and the socioenvironmental epigenetic stress approach. According to the ear to the ground hypothesis, frequent and prolonged environmental uncertainty and hazard induce low-SES children to learn adaptive over-vigilance, attending disproportionately to stimuli that are currently irrelevant but may quickly become relevant and thus require an immediate survival response. Socioenvironmental epigenetic stress refers to the bidirectional interaction between a stress-inducing environment and the impact and expression of transgenerational gene selections in low-SES contexts. Because low-SES individuals are historically under and misrepresented in research, the proposed framework contributes to increase our understanding of how socioeconomic and environmental conditions may affect neurocognitive development. This offers significant points of entry for future interventions and policies targeting macrosocial settings (i.e., education and the justice system) and microsocial ontogenetic settings (i.e., individuals and families).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".