↓ Skip to main content

Revising the diagnosis of congenital amusia with the Montreal Battery of Evaluation of Amusia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Revising the diagnosis of congenital amusia with the Montreal Battery of Evaluation of Amusia
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00161
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasmin Pfeifer, Silke Hamann

Abstract

This article presents a critical survey of the prevalent usage of the Montreal Battery of Evaluation of Amusia (MBEA; Peretz et al., 2003) to assess congenital amusia, a neuro-developmental disorder that has been claimed to be present in 4% of the population (Kalmus and Fry, 1980). It reviews and discusses the current usage of the MBEA in relation to cut-off scores, number of used subtests, manner of testing, and employed statistics, as these vary in the literature. Furthermore, data are presented from a large-scale experiment with 228 German undergraduate students who were assessed with the MBEA and a comprehensive questionnaire. This experiment tested the difference between scores that were obtained in a web-based study (at participants' homes) and those obtained under laboratory conditions with a computerized version of the MBEA. In addition to traditional statistical procedures, the data were evaluated using Signal Detection Theory (SDT; Green and Swets, 1966), taking into consideration the individual's ability to discriminate and their response bias. Results show that using SDT for scoring instead of proportion correct offers a bias-free and normally distributed measure of discrimination ability. It is also demonstrated that a diagnosis based on an average score leads to cases of misdiagnosis. The prevalence of congenital amusia is shown to depend highly on the statistical criterion that is applied as cut-off score and on the number of subtests that is considered for the diagnosis. In addition, three different subtypes of amusics were found in our sample. Lastly, significant differences between the web-based and the laboratory group were found, giving rise to questions about the validity of web-based experimentation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 88 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 27%
Student > Bachelor 16 18%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Master 6 7%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 33%
Neuroscience 14 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Linguistics 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 17 19%