MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975451008 · doi:10.1196/annals.1360.018

Quantifying Tone Deafness in the General Population

2005· article· en· W1975451008 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Sloboda, Karen Wise, Isabelle Peretz

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMelodyPerceptionSingingAudiologyPopulationCognitive psychologyCompetence (human resources)MusicalRhythmDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many people reach adulthood without acquiring significant music performance skills (singing or instrumental playing). A substantial proportion of these adults consider that this has come about because they are "not musical." Some of these people may be "true" congenital amusics, characterized by specific and substantial anomalies in the processing of musical pitch and rhythm sequences, while at the same time displaying normal processing of speech and language. It is likely, however, that many adults who believe that they are unmusical are neurologically normal. We could call these adults "false" amusics. Acquisition of musical competence has multiple personal, social, and environmental precursors. Deficiencies in these areas may lead to lack of musical achievement, despite the fact that an individual possesses the necessary underlying capacities. Adults may therefore self-define as "unmusical" or "tone-deaf" for reasons unconnected to any underlying anomaly. This paper reports on two linked research studies. The first is an interview study with adults defining themselves as tone-deaf or unmusical. The interview schedule was designed to discover what criteria are being used in their self-definitions. Preliminary results suggest that performance criteria (e.g., judging oneself as unable to sing) play a major role, even for people who claim and demonstrate no perceptual deficits. The second study reports progress on the development of new subtests for a revised version of the Montreal Battery for the Evaluation of Amusia (MBEA, Peretz et al., 2003). This currently contains six tests that allow for the assessment of melodic perception: contour, intervals, scale, rhythm, meter, and recognition memory. The MBEA does not assess two capacities that are generally accepted as central to normal music cognition: harmony and emotion. The development and norming of the emotion subtest will be described. When completed, the MBEA(R) will form a robust screening device for use with the general population, whose purpose is to discriminate "true" from "false" amusics. Such discrimination is essential to achieve a better understanding of the variety of causes of low musical achievement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.284
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations95
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207