↓ Skip to main content

On the Perceptual Subprocess of Absolute Pitch

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
On the Perceptual Subprocess of Absolute Pitch
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00557
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seung-Goo Kim, Thomas R. Knösche

Abstract

Absolute pitch (AP) is the rare ability of musicians to identify the pitch of tonal sound without external reference. While there have been behavioral and neuroimaging studies on the characteristics of AP, how the AP is implemented in human brains remains largely unknown. AP can be viewed as comprising of two subprocesses: perceptual (processing auditory input to extract a pitch chroma) and associative (linking an auditory representation of pitch chroma with a verbal/non-verbal label). In this review, we focus on the nature of the perceptual subprocess of AP. Two different models on how the perceptual subprocess works have been proposed: either via absolute pitch categorization (APC) or based on absolute pitch memory (APM). A major distinction between the two views is that whether the AP uses unique auditory processing (i.e., APC) that exists only in musicians with AP or it is rooted in a common phenomenon (i.e., APM), only with heightened efficiency. We review relevant behavioral and neuroimaging evidence that supports each notion. Lastly, we list open questions and potential ideas to address them.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 23%
Student > Master 9 17%
Researcher 6 11%
Other 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 19%
Psychology 9 17%
Neuroscience 8 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 16 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2021.
All research outputs
#3,275,025
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#2,423
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,775
of 332,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#30
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,159 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.