Neural correlates of perceived consonant and dissonant dyad chords in human\nbrain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physiological mechanisms and musical experience work together to shape consonance\nand dissonance perceptions. Previous studies using evoked response potentials and magnetic\nresonance images have found physiological correlates for the perception of consonance and\ndissonance. The present study tested the following: 1. could participants attribute different\ndegrees of consonance and pleasantness to the 12 sinusoidal dyads within an octave, when\nthese notes were isolated from the influence of basilar membrane beats by presenting each\nnote to a different ear (dichotic presentation), and the effects of changes in critical bandwidth\nwere reduced by maintaining a constant average frequency as the semitone difference\nbetween the two tones increased? 2. were differences in the perception of consonance and\npleasantness distinguishable in their EEG recordings? 3. did the EEG recordings show a\nsystematic difference between participants with different cultural backgrounds.\nParticipants did not attribute different degrees of consonance and dissonance to the 12\ndyads in both conditions. ANOVA of consonance and pleasantness ratings showed no\nsignificant effect of stimulus types (1 to 12 semitones). Ethnicity (Chinese and Canadian) and\nconditions (dichotic and diotic) also failed to show any significant effect.\nFrequency spectra of the EEG responses evoked by the 12 dyads were correlated to the\nfrequency spectra of the EEG responses evoked by the self-consonant tone (unison). Analysis\nof Variance comparing these correlations showed no significant difference between the two\npresentation conditions (diotic and dichotic), or between different dyads. Interestingly, the\none significant effect found was of the locations of the recording electrode, which implied\nthat different cortical areas had different degrees of involvement in the perception of\nconsonance.\nRatings of consonance did not significantly correlate with ratings of pleasantness. The\nEEG data variations in the correlation of each dyad’s EEG spectrum with the reference\nspectrum did not correlate with the ratings of consonance or pleasantness of the dyads. The\nresults refuted Helmholtz and Plomp & Levelt’s theory. However, these results were not\nconclusive due to several major technical and methodological limitations of the present study.\nThe present study did however lay the groundwork for further work.
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".