You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Perceiving a Stranger's Voice as Being One's Own: A ‘Rubber Voice’ Illusion?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, April 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0018655 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zane Z. Zheng, Ewen N. MacDonald, Kevin G. Munhall, Ingrid S. Johnsrude |
| Abstract |
We describe an illusion in which a stranger's voice, when presented as the auditory concomitant of a participant's own speech, is perceived as a modified version of their own voice. When the congruence between utterance and feedback breaks down, the illusion is also broken. Compared to a baseline condition in which participants heard their own voice as feedback, hearing a stranger's voice induced robust changes in the fundamental frequency (F0) of their production. Moreover, the shift in F0 appears to be feedback dependent, since shift patterns depended reliably on the relationship between the participant's own F0 and the stranger-voice F0. The shift in F0 was evident both when the illusion was present and after it was broken, suggesting that auditory feedback from production may be used separately for self-recognition and for vocal motor control. Our findings indicate that self-recognition of voices, like other body attributes, is malleable and context dependent. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Luxembourg | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 109 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 20% |
| Unknown | 18 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 43 | 37% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 11 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 5% |
| Linguistics | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 18 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 February 2013.
All research outputs
#14,715,394
of 22,647,730 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#122,721
of 193,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,540
of 108,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,092
of 1,442 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,647,730 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 108,753 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,442 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.