[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: AUDITORY Digest - 12 Aug 2008 to 13 Aug 2008 (#2008-162)



You may even classify the current situation as "absolutely uncontroversial", if you like that term. There never have been any indications whatsoever that APers might have superior abilities in these tasks.

The reason that this question occasionally arises probably is loose terminology like "perfect pitch". One more reason to cut out this term.

Martin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Braun
Neuroscience of Music
S-671 95 Klässbol
Sweden
web site: http://w1.570.telia.com/~u57011259/index.htm



----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Levitin" <levitin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: AUDITORY Digest - 12 Aug 2008 to 13 Aug 2008 (#2008-162)



I don't consider the findings controversial. I found essentially the same thing in unpublished work I did in 1996. Probably the only reason for the low number of citations for Fujisaki and Kashino is that there hasn't been a lot written on AP since 2002.

Dan Levitin



Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:40:24 -0400 From: "Bruno L. Giordano" <bruno.giordano@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Absolute pitch & discrimination abilities

Dear list,

some time ago I read a paper that compares discrimination abilities in
absolute pitch (AP) and relative pitch listeners (Fujisaki and Kashino,
2002).

The paper reports some experiments showing that AP possessors do not
have superior frequency, temporal and spatial resolution; along these
lines is the review by Levitin and Rogers (2005): "AP possessors do not
have an exceptional acuity".

I apologize for my ignorance of the rather vast literature on AP: my
question is whether the findings by Fujisaki and Kashino (2002) are
controversial or absolutely uncontroversial (they are cited only three
times, including the Wikipedia entry on absolute pitch).

Thank you.

All the best,

Bruno