| Title |
The Montreal Protocol for Identification of Amusia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-017-0892-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
D. T. Vuvan, S. Paquette, G. Mignault Goulet, I. Royal, M. Felezeu, I. Peretz |
| Abstract |
The Montreal Battery for the Evaluation of Amusia (MBEA; Peretz, Champod, & Hyde Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 999, 58-75, 2003) is an empirically grounded quantitative tool that is widely used to identify individuals with congenital amusia. The use of such a standardized measure ensures that the individuals tested will conform to a specific neuropsychological profile, allowing for comparisons across studies and research groups. Recently, a number of researchers have published credible critiques of the usefulness of the MBEA as a diagnostic tool for amusia. Here we argue that the MBEA and its online counterpart, the AMUSIA tests (Peretz et al. Music Perception, 25, 331-343, 2008), should be considered steps in a screening process for amusia, rather than standalone diagnostic tools. The goal of this article is to present, in detailed and easily replicable format, the full protocol through which congenital amusics should be identified. In providing information that has often gone unreported in published articles, we aim to clarify the strengths and limitations of the MBEA and to make recommendations for its continued use by the research community as part of the Montreal Protocol for Identification of Amusia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Greece | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 105 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 13% |
| Researcher | 13 | 12% |
| Professor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 15% |
| Unknown | 25 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 26 | 25% |
| Psychology | 23 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 5% |
| Linguistics | 4 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 30 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 May 2017.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,896
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,400
of 324,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#28
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 324,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.