Our results support the notion that

Our results support the notion that AP possessors have available to them a number of encoding strategies that may be used concurrently, including (but not limited to) verbal labeling. According to this view, AP possessors differ from nonpossessors in that they are able to match pitches of tones to some fixed internal scale, which in tum al lows them to give the corresponding verbal label; however, they presumably can also effect the match without recourse to the label. Thus, if access to the verbal label is difficult or impossible, they should still be able to make use of their knowledge about the pitch of the tone. On the other hand, when the tones do not match an internalized template, AP possessors should have no advantage over nonpossessors, as was demonstrated by Siegel (1974) in the condition in which adjacent tones in the set were separated by only Xo of a semitone. This account of AP is not meant to explain what factors may lead to its acquisition or development; rather, it points out the potential richness of the AP possessor's cognitive framework for pitch.