Figure 1.
Percentage increase in publications from 2005 to 2011.
Source is Web of Science. Number of publications across the time period is higher for language (539 to 817) and memory (1,140 to 2,031) than for music (81 to 162), but growth is faster in the music domain. As shown by the decrease in art-related publications, the increase in music publication is not due to a general increase in scientific publications relating to the arts.
Table 1.
Overview of previous musical ability tests.
Table 2.
PROMS tasks included and not included in previous music aptitude batteries.
Figure 2.
An easy trial consists of a tonal melody (upper part) as opposed to a complex trial, which is atonal (lower part). *Represents the alteration in the comparison-stimuli.
Figure 3.
Example from the standard rhythm trials.
An easy trial consists of a simple rhythm (mostly quarter notes and eighth notes), as compared with a complex trial, which consists of a more complicated rhythm (eighth notes and sixteenth notes). *Represents the alteration in the comparison-stimuli.
Figure 4.
Example of rhythm-to-melody trials.
An easy trial consists of a simple rhythm (mostly quarter notes and eighth notes), as compared with a complex trial, which consists of a more complicated rhythm (eighth notes and sixteenth notes). All melodies (comparison-stimuli) are tonal. *Represents the alteration in the comparison-stimuli.
Figure 5.
The top figure shows the level domain of the accent subtest and the bottom figure shows the time domain of the accent subtest. As the top figure shows, the intensities of the accent notes (a) are represented by the sign>in the time domain figures, Accent (a’). Accent (b) shows the unaccented notes (second, third, and fourth beats) are −3 dB lower than the accented note, which can also be seen in the comparison-stimulus in the time domain - Accent (b’). The example of a complex trial shows the alteration affecting only one or two events. *Represents the alteration in the comparison-stimuli.
Figure 6.
Illustration of the timbre subtest.
The easy trial consists of two groups of instruments from altogether different families. In the complex trial, the instrument changes on only one note are taken from the same family (strings).
Figure 7.
Illustration of tuning trials.
The difficulty of tuning trials is manipulated by the extent to which the note E4 is shifted out of its proper frequency (from 10 to 50 cents).
Table 3.
Descriptive summaries for PROMS subtests and composite score.
Figure 8.
Scattergram plotting total PROMS scores at Time 1 against Time 2.
Units are d prime values (d′).
Table 4.
Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega, and test-retest coefficient for subtests and composite score.
Table 5.
Validity correlation between AMMA, MET, MAP, and timbre (mono) with the PROMS.
Figure 9.
Scattergram plotting PROMS performance against an aggregate index of musical training.
Training includes years of musical training, music degrees and qualifications, critical listening activities, and musicianship status (main text). Extent of training predicts PROMS performance substantially but imperfectly (r = .57, p<. 01). Upper left corner: Example of a “musical sleeper” performing well despite minimal musical training. Lower right corner: Example of a “sleeping musician” posting a lesser performance despite extensive musical training.
Table 6.
Correlations between the PROMS and the gap detection task.
Table 7.
Intercorrelations of all PROMS subtest scores including the composite score.
Table 8.
Factor analysis of the PROMS.