Attending to Pitch Information Inhibits Processing of Pitch Information: The Curious Case of Amusia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In normal listeners, the tonal rules of music guide musical expectancy. In a minority of individuals, known as amusics, the processing of tonality is disordered, which results in severe musical deficits. It has been shown that the tonal rules of music are neurally encoded, but not consciously available in amusics. Previous neurophysiological studies have not explicitly controlled the level of attention in tasks where participants ignored the tonal structure of the stimuli. Here, we test whether access to tonal knowledge can be demonstrated in congenital amusia when attention is controlled. Electric brain responses were recorded while asking participants to detect an individually adjusted near-threshold click in a melody. In half the melodies, a note was inserted that violated the tonal rules of music. In a second task, participants were presented with the same melodies but were required to detect the tonal deviation. Both tasks required sustained attention, thus conscious access to the rules of tonality was manipulated. In the click-detection task, the pitch deviants evoked an early right anterior negativity (ERAN) in both groups. In the pitch-detection task, the pitch deviants evoked an ERAN and P600 in controls but not in amusics. These results indicate that pitch regularities are represented in the cortex of amusics, but are not consciously available. Moreover, performing a pitch-judgment task eliminated the ERAN in amusics, suggesting that attending to pitch information interferes with perception of pitch. We propose that an impaired top-down frontotemporal projection is responsible for this disorder.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".