↓ Skip to main content

The nature of hemispheric specialization for prosody perception

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
The nature of hemispheric specialization for prosody perception
Published in
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, February 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13415-014-0255-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jurriaan Witteman, Katharina S. Goerlich-Dobre, Sander Martens, André Aleman, Vincent J. Van Heuven, Niels O. Schiller

Abstract

Recent evidence suggests a relative right-hemispheric specialization for emotional prosody perception, whereas linguistic prosody perception is under bilateral control. It is still unknown, however, how the hemispheric specialization for prosody perception might arise. Two main hypotheses have been put forward. Cue-dependent hypotheses, on the one hand, propose that hemispheric specialization is driven by specialization for the non-prosody-specific processing of acoustic cues. The functional lateralization hypothesis, on the other hand, proposes that hemispheric specialization is dependent on the communicative function of prosody, with emotional and linguistic prosody processing being lateralized to the right and left hemispheres, respectively. In the present study, the functional lateralization hypothesis of prosody perception was systematically tested by instructing one group of participants to evaluate the emotional prosody, and another group the linguistic prosody dimension of bidimensional prosodic stimuli in a dichotic-listening paradigm, while event-related potentials were recorded. The results showed that the right-ear advantage was associated with decreased latencies for an early negativity in the contralateral hemisphere. No evidence was found for functional lateralization. These findings suggest that functional lateralization effects for prosody perception are small and support the structural model of dichotic listening.

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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 55 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 21%
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Professor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 14 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 24%
Neuroscience 7 12%
Linguistics 7 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 17 29%
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 14 September 2016.
All research outputs
#13,431,444
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#398
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,732
of 320,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#8
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 58% 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 320,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.