Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33370349›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Revisiting discrete versus continuous models of human behavior: The case of absolute pitch.

Stephen C Van Hedger, John Veillette, Shannon L M Heald, Howard C Nusbaum

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Stephen C Van HedgerCenter for Practical Wisdom, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2448-9088
John VeilletteCenter for Practical Wisdom, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0332-4372
Shannon L M HealdCenter for Practical Wisdom, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States of America.
Howard C NusbaumCenter for Practical Wisdom, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States of America.
University of Chicago · USWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many human behaviors are discussed in terms of discrete categories. Quantizing behavior in this fashion may provide important traction for understanding the complexities of human experience, but it also may bias understanding of phenomena and associated mechanisms. One example of this is absolute pitch (AP), which is often treated as a discrete trait that is either present or absent (i.e., with easily identifiable near-perfect "genuine" AP possessors and at-chance non-AP possessors) despite emerging evidence that pitch-labeling ability is not all-or-nothing. We used a large-scale online assessment to test the discrete model of AP, specifically by measuring how intermediate performers related to the typically defined "non-AP" and "genuine AP" populations. Consistent with prior research, individuals who performed at-chance (non-AP) reported beginning musical instruction much later than the near-perfect AP participants, and the highest performers were more likely to speak a tonal language than were the lowest performers (though this effect was not as statistically robust as one would expect from prior research). Critically, however, these developmental factors did not differentiate the near-perfect AP performers from the intermediate AP performers. Gaussian mixture modeling supported the existence of two performance distributions-the first distribution encompassed both the intermediate and near-perfect AP possessors, whereas the second distribution encompassed only the at-chance participants. Overall, these results provide support for conceptualizing intermediate levels of pitch-labeling ability along the same continuum as genuine AP-level pitch labeling ability-in other words, a continuous distribution of AP skill among all above-chance performers rather than discrete categories of ability. Expanding the inclusion criteria for AP makes it possible to test hypotheses about the mechanisms that underlie this ability and relate this ability to more general cognitive mechanisms involved in other abilities.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAdultAuditory PerceptionBiometryFemaleHumansLanguageMaleMusicPitch DiscriminationPitch Perception

Identifiers

PMID33370349
PMCPMC7769265
OpenAlexW2953968716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.