↓ Skip to main content

Pitch-Matching Accuracy and Temporal Auditory Processing

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Pitch-Matching Accuracy and Temporal Auditory Processing
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, June 2017
DOI 10.1055/s-0037-1603763
Pubmed ID
Authors

Congeta Bruniere Xavier Fadel, Angela Ribas, Débora Lüders, Vinicius Ribas Fonseca, Monica Nunes Lima Cat

Abstract

Introduction  Pitch-matching refers to the ability to vocally reproduce an acoustic model in a corresponding tone to the presented sound. This ability, which is dependent on pitch perception ability, can vary among individuals, and some are not able to sing in the correct tune or discriminate differences between tones. Objective  To correlate pitch-matching accuracy and auditory processing in individuals without musical training. Methods  A Pitch-Matching Test (vocal reproduction of synthesized and human voice sounds) and two commercially available tests of auditory temporal processing (the Pitch Pattern Sequence Test and the Random Gap Detection Test) were administered to all participants. A total of 62 college students of both genders, aged between 18 and 35 years old, were divided into 2 groups, according to their performances in the Pitch-Matching Test (the accurate match group and the inaccurate match group). Results  In the Pitch-Matching Test, both groups achieved better results when reproducing vocalized sounds. The accurate match group achieved a significantly higher pitch pattern sequence test performance. In the Random Gap Detection Test analysis, there were no differences between the two groups. The Pearson's chi-squared test showed a direct correlation between the Pitch-Matching Test and the Pitch Pattern Sequence Test. Conclusion  The findings of this study suggest the existence of a significant relationship between temporal auditory processing and pitch-matching, through which accurate pitch-matching individuals perform better in the Pitch Pattern Sequence Test. Inaccurate pitch-matching individuals may be skilled at discriminating pitch, despite their poor performance in the Pitch-Matching Test.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 21%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Unspecified 2 5%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 15 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Linguistics 2 5%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 16 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 July 2020.
All research outputs
#17,945,904
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#200
of 647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,166
of 317,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#4
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 647 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 317,591 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 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.