Talk:Absolute pitch

Adding Eddy Chen to the list of people with absolute pitch

There are no articles stating Chen has perfect pitch. However, he did explicitly state such in their video "Does Charlie Puth REALLY Have Perfect Pitch??" and many other videos. Is it possible to cite YouTube videos in a Wikipedia article if information is explicitly stated, and can YouTube videos be cited if no article is present for the topic? Booklover9876 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This has already been discussed extensively. A Youtube video with one musician claiming another musician has perfect pitch does not constitute a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Eddy himself has said he has perfect pitch multiple times in his videos. 205.178.101.159 (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

"Eddy himself has said" is not a reliable source. If you try to add that again, you will be blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I did not add Chen to the list, but I understand that videos are unreliable sources. Booklover9876 (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Pitch memory related to musical context

This sentence: Members of the Venda culture in South Africa also sing familiar children's songs in the key in which the songs were learned.

Is this not what singing is naturally? In which case this sentence does not belong as it has nothing to do with absolute pitch Sarahonthewiki (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not what singing is naturally. In informal settings, a singer may choose a key that suits their vocal range. This can go something like, "oops, I started too high (or low.) Let me start again a bit lower (or higher.)" Just plain Bill (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Updating "Nature vs. nurture" section to reflect 2019-2025 adult AP acquisition literature

The current "Nature vs. nurture" section contains the following claim:

"However, no adult has ever been documented to have acquired absolute listening ability, because all adults who have been formally tested after AP training have failed to demonstrate 'an unqualified level of accuracy ... comparable to that of AP possessors'."

This claim is sourced to Levitin & Rogers (2005) and Takeuchi & Hulse (1993). Both sources predate the body of peer-reviewed research published between 2019 and 2025 documenting individual adults achieving AP performance indistinguishable from lifelong AP possessors through structured training. The current text has been superseded by subsequent peer-reviewed research.

The foundational study is Van Hedger, Heald, & Nusbaum (2019), "Absolute pitch can be learned by some adults", PLOS ONE 14(9), e0223047. The authors trained six adult participants over eight weeks. Two participants (identified as S2 and S5) achieved accuracy and response times that the authors directly compared against an independent dataset of 51 confirmed AP possessors from a prior investigation. The authors found "strong evidence that Participants S2 and S5 were indistinguishable from a prior group of 'genuine' AP possessors post-training, even when limiting the analyses to notes that were separated by more than one octave." The authors explicitly conclude: "if one wants to claim that what we observed is not genuine AP, then either the current definition of AP or the ways in which AP is tested need to be fundamentally reconsidered."

This finding has been independently replicated:

• Wong, Lui, Yip, & Wong (2020), "Is it impossible for absolute pitch to be acquired in adulthood?", Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 82, 1407-1430. The authors report that "14% of the participants (6 out of 43) were able to name twelve pitches at 90% or above accuracy [...] our successfully trained participants would be considered 'AP possessors' in 83.3% (55 out of 66) of those papers using objective definitions, meaning that their AP performance was representative of and comparable to that of 'AP possessors' as defined in the literature."

• Wong, Cheung, Ngan, & Wong (2025), "Learning fast and accurate absolute pitch judgment in adulthood", Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 32, 1676-1688. The authors report that "two participants passed all training levels and showed highly accurate and fast AP judgment with all 12 pitches in the post-test [...] demonstrating that there was no 'glass ceiling' for AP development in adulthood," and note that "the two highest-achieving participants in the current study, based on the accuracy and speed of their AP judgment, would be categorized as 'true' AP in more than 80% of the published papers that adopted an objective performance-based definition of AP."

I propose replacing the contested sentence with text that reflects this literature. A draft replacement:

"The first documented cases of adults acquiring absolute pitch performance indistinguishable from lifelong possessors were reported by Van Hedger, Heald, and Nusbaum (2019). Two of six adult participants achieved accuracy and response times that, when directly compared against a prior dataset of confirmed AP possessors, were statistically indistinguishable from that group, including when analyses were restricted to notes separated by more than one octave. These findings have been independently replicated in multiple subsequent peer-reviewed studies."

Followed by the citations above as references.

Conflict of interest disclosure: I am the founder of HarmoniQ, a software platform for absolute pitch training. The proposed edit cites only independent peer-reviewed research and does not reference HarmoniQ or any related sources. Posting here for discussion rather than editing directly, given the COI. Happy to let an uninvolved editor implement any consensus version.

I'd welcome discussion on the proposed replacement, including alternative phrasings, before any edit is made.

Matthewclower (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

No objections in 8 days since the proposal above. Requesting an uninvolved editor implement the replacement, given my disclosed COI.

Please change:

:However, no adult has ever been documented to have acquired absolute listening ability,<ref>{{cite journal |author=Levitin, D. J. |author2=Rogers, S. E. |name-list-style=amp |title=Absolute pitch: Perception, coding, and controversies |journal=Trends in Cognitive Sciences|volume=9 |year=2005 |pages=26–33 |doi=10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.007 |pmid=15639438 |issue=1 |s2cid=15346652 |url=http://www.zainea.com/absolpitch.pdf |access-date=June 11, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060322032152/http://www.zainea.com/absolpitch.pdf |archive-date=March 22, 2006}}</ref> because all adults who have been formally tested after AP training have failed to demonstrate "an unqualified level of accuracy{{nbs}}... comparable to that of AP possessors".<ref>{{cite journal |author=Takeuchi, A. H. |author2=Hulse, S. H. |name-list-style=amp |title=Absolute pitch |journal=Psychological Bulletin|volume=113 |issue=2 |pages=345–61 |year=1993 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.113.2.345 |pmid=8451339}}</ref>
:

to:

:The first documented cases of adults acquiring absolute pitch performance indistinguishable from lifelong possessors were reported by Van Hedger, Heald, and Nusbaum (2019).<ref name="VanHedger2019">{{cite journal |last1=Van Hedger |first1=Stephen C. |last2=Heald |first2=Shannon L. M. |last3=Nusbaum |first3=Howard C. |name-list-style=amp |title=Absolute pitch can be learned by some adults |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=14 |issue=9 |pages=e0223047 |year=2019 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0223047 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Two of six adult participants achieved accuracy and response times that, when directly compared against a prior dataset of confirmed AP possessors, were statistically indistinguishable from that group, including when analyses were restricted to notes separated by more than one octave.<ref name="VanHedger2019" /> These findings have been independently replicated in subsequent peer-reviewed studies.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wong |first1=Yetta Kwailing |last2=Lui |first2=Kelvin F. H. |last3=Yip |first3=Ken H. M. |last4=Wong |first4=Alan C.-N. |name-list-style=amp |title=Is it impossible for absolute pitch to be acquired in adulthood? |journal=Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics |volume=82 |pages=1407–1430 |year=2020 |doi=10.3758/s13414-019-01869-3 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wong |first1=Yetta Kwailing |last2=Cheung |first2=Leo Y. T. |last3=Ngan |first3=Vince S. H. |last4=Wong |first4=Alan C.-N. |name-list-style=amp |title=Learning fast and accurate absolute pitch judgment in adulthood |journal=Psychonomic Bulletin & Review |volume=32 |pages=1676–1688 |year=2025 |doi=10.3758/s13423-024-02620-2 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
:

Matthewclower (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Partly done. I've included the study, but with some edits for neutrality. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:45, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Matthewclower ping, I've added the study. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:45, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@CaptainEek Thank you for your help bringing the article up to the current research. I think the changes make significant progress for this topic, particularly by preserving the old text and qualifying it with the "as of 2005" framing.

A couple of minor things I noticed:

1. Reference 74 includes 2 PDF links, and the second link: http://www.zainea.com/absolpitch.pdf is a dead link.
2. This sentence seems to have a grammatical artifact left over after editing: "A 2019 study claimed to have documented adults acquiring absolute pitch performance indistinguishable from lifelong possessors were reported."

Additionally, the use of the word "claim" in this context seems inconsistent with the neutral point of view guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch which frames it as "To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence." Given that this refers to the findings of an undisputed, peer-reviewed study that has been independently replicated, would it be cleaner to use a neutral verb, such as: "A 2019 study reported adults acquiring absolute pitch performance..."? Matthewclower (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Matthewclower Fair enough, done. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:57, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

As to the dead PDF link, if you have a replacement link, I can put it in. Otherwise, we tend to leave deadlinks so that they might someday be rescued or fixed. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again, for your help with the change.

Regarding the link: strictly speaking, I don't think either PDF is allowed to be there at all. The first link links to the same dead link via the WayBackMachine https://web.archive.org/web/20060322032152/http://www.zainea.com/absolpitch.pdf which appears to have been since taken down.

The official link for that study is https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.007 which is properly embedded in the citation. Downloading the PDF from that location is behind an institutional paywall Matthewclower (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @CaptainEek - Sorry to bug you with one more minor catch. This morning I noticed the tense in the second half of the 2005 sentence didn't get updated to match the new opening.

Could we tweak the two "have"s to "had" so the whole sentence aligns?

Current: "...because all adults who have been formally tested after AP training have failed to demonstrate..." Suggested: "...because all adults who had been formally tested after AP training had failed to demonstrate..." Matthewclower (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Copyediting done. As for the PDF, it has an archived version of it, and a deadlink the the original for attribution. I don't see a reason to change that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:33, 15 August 2026 (UTC)