↓ Skip to main content

Discrimination of personally significant from nonsignificant sounds: A training study

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Discrimination of personally significant from nonsignificant sounds: A training study
Published in
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, May 2013
DOI 10.3758/s13415-013-0173-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anja Roye, Thomas Jacobsen, Erich Schröger

Abstract

Discriminating personally significant from nonsignificant sounds is of high behavioral relevance and appears to be performed effortlessly outside of the focus of attention. Although there is no doubt that we automatically monitor our auditory environment for unexpected, and hence potentially significant, events, the characteristics of detection mechanisms based on individual memory schemata have been far less explored. The experiments in the present study were designed to measure event-related potentials (ERPs) sensitive to the discrimination of personally significant and nonsignificant nonlinguistic sounds. Participants were presented with random sequences of acoustically variable sounds, one of which was associated with personal significance for each of the participants. In Experiment 1, each participant's own mobile SMS ringtone served as his or her significant sound. In Experiment 2, a nonsignificant sound was instead trained to become personally significant to each participant over a period of one month. ERPs revealed differential processing of personally significant and nonsignificant sounds from about 200 ms after stimulus onset, even when the sounds were task-irrelevant. We propose the existence of a mechanism for the detection of significant sounds that does not rely on the detection of acoustic deviation. From a comparison of the results from our active- and passive-listening conditions, this discriminative process based on individual memory schemata seems to be obligatory, whereas the impact of individual memory schemata on further stages of auditory processing may require top-down guidance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 39 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Researcher 6 15%
Professor 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 44%
Neuroscience 4 10%
Engineering 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 9 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2016.
All research outputs
#7,977,154
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#346
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,741
of 199,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#8
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 199,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.