Attention, Working Memory and Inhibitory Control in Aging: Comparing Amateur Singers, Instrumentalists and Active Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the aging of executive functions in amateur singers and amateur instrument players. Specifically, we examined auditory processing speed, auditory selective attention, auditory and visual inhibitory control and auditory working memory in 39 amateur singers (mean age 61.8 ± 16.4; 23–88 years, 62% females), 43 amateur instrumentalists (mean age 52.1 ± 18.2; 20–88 years, 36% females) and 40 non-musician active controls (mean age 55.6 ± 19; 20–87 years, 50% females). Here we share the aggregated dataset that was used for group-level statistical analysis. In each file, all variables (independent, dependent, and covariates) that was used for analysis is included (including participants characteristics). The datasets are provided as both .XLSX and .CSV (UTF-8, separated by commas) documents for maximal compatibility. The article is available in open access here: https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.15230
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".