↓ Skip to main content

Disorders of Pitch Production in Tone Deafness

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Disorders of Pitch Production in Tone Deafness
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00164
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simone Dalla Bella, Magdalena Berkowska, Jakub Sowiński

Abstract

Singing is as natural as speaking for the majority of people. Yet some individuals (i.e., 10-15%) are poor singers, typically performing or imitating pitches and melodies inaccurately. This condition, commonly referred to as "tone deafness," has been observed both in the presence and absence of deficient pitch perception. In this article we review the existing literature concerning normal singing, poor-pitch singing, and, briefly, the sources of this condition. Considering that pitch plays a prominent role in the structure of both music and speech we also focus on the possibility that speech production (or imitation) is similarly impaired in poor-pitch singers. Preliminary evidence from our laboratory suggests that pitch imitation may be selectively inaccurate in the music domain without being affected in speech. This finding points to separability of mechanisms subserving pitch production in music and language.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
China 1 1%
Greece 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 66 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 21%
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 8 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 32%
Arts and Humanities 9 12%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 10 14%
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 30 December 2022.
All research outputs
#3,080,164
of 25,079,481 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,933
of 33,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,233
of 193,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#74
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,079,481 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 33,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 193,139 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.