Conceptual coherence but methodological mayhem: A systematic review of absolute pitch phenotyping.

Abstract

Despite extensive research on absolute pitch (AP), there remains no gold-standard task to measure its presence or extent. This systematic review investigated the methods of pitch-naming tasks for the classification of individuals with AP and examined how our understanding of the AP phenotype is affected by variability in the tasks used to measure it. Data extracted from 160 studies (N = 23,221 participants) included (i) the definition of AP, (ii) task characteristics, (iii) scoring method, and (iv) participant scores. While there was near-universal agreement (99%) in the conceptual definition of AP, task characteristics such as stimulus range and timbre varied greatly. Ninety-five studies (59%) specified a pitch-naming accuracy threshold for AP classification, which ranged from 20 to 100% (mean = 77%, SD = 20), with additional variability introduced by 31 studies that assigned credit to semitone errors. When examining participants' performance rather than predetermined thresholds, mean task accuracy (not including semitone errors) was 85.9% (SD = 10.8) for AP participants and 17.0% (SD = 10.5) for non-AP participants. This review shows that the characterisation of the AP phenotype varies based on methodological choices in tasks and scoring, limiting the generalisability of individual studies. To promote a more coherent approach to AP phenotyping, recommendations about the characteristics of a gold-standard pitch-naming task are provided based on the review findings. Future work should also use data-driven techniques to characterise phenotypic variability to support the development of a taxonomy of AP phenotypes to advance our understanding of its mechanisms and genetic basis.