Musical difficulties are rare: A study of “tone deafness” among university students. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: This study was concerned with self-reported “tone deafness ” and its possible relationship to congenital amusia. Nearly 17 % of over 2000 first-year psychology students at Queen’s University self-reported tone deafness. Two hundred students were recruited from this pool of students, comprising 100 who reported tone deafness and 100 who reported that they were not tone-deaf (NTD). The study contained two parts. In part 1, participants completed the six tests of the Montreal Battery of Evaluation of Amusia (MBEA) devel-oped by Peretz and collaborators. In part 2, participants completed an exten-sive questionnaire designed to elicit details about musical experiences, abilities, training, and interests. Twenty-eight questionnaire items allowing a quantita-tive response were subjected to factor analysis. Four orthogonal components emerged from the analysis. The components reflected self-report of (1) vocal production, (2) music instruction, (3) listening attitudes, and (4) childhood memories of musical environment. Results for each of the MBEA tests and composite scores for all tests were regressed on participants ’ factor scores. The best and significant predictors of the MBEA scores were factor I and factor II, followed by factor III. Factor scores accounted for a higher percentage of the variance in MBEA composite test results (27%) than the self-report of tone deafness alone (7%). The musical difficulties revealed by the MBEA test results for some participants warrant further attention and study. However, an encouraging conclusion from the MBEA results is that many individuals who consider themselves “tone-deaf ” may not, in fact, have perceptual difficulties, and these individuals should be supported in any of their efforts to proceed with music enjoyment and instruction.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".