The Effects of Absolute Pitch and Tone Language on Pitch Processing and Encoding in Musicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Absolute pitch (AP) is the rare ability to identify or produce a specific pitch without a reference pitch, which appears to be more prevalent in tone-language speakers than non-tone-language speakers. Numerous studies support a close relationship between AP, music, and language. Despite this relationship, the extent to which these factors contribute to the processing and encoding of pitch has not yet been investigated. Addressing this research question would provide insights into the relationship between music and language, as well as the mechanisms of AP. To this aim, we recruited AP musicians and non-AP musicians who were either tone-language (Mandarin and Cantonese) or non-tone language speakers. Participants completed a zero- and one-back working memory task using music and non-music (control) stimuli. In general, AP participants had better accuracy and faster reaction times than participants without AP. This effect remained even after controlling for the age at which participants began formal music lessons. We did not observe a performance advantage afforded by speaking a tone language, nor a cumulative advantage afforded by having AP and being a tone-language speaker.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".