| Title |
Sensorimotor synchronization with audio-visual stimuli: limited multisensory integration
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-014-4031-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alan Armstrong, Johann Issartel |
| Abstract |
Understanding how we synchronize our actions with stimuli from different sensory modalities plays a central role in helping to establish how we interact with our multisensory environment. Recent research has shown better performance with multisensory over unisensory stimuli; however, the type of stimuli used has mainly been auditory and tactile. The aim of this article was to expand our understanding of sensorimotor synchronization with multisensory audio-visual stimuli and compare these findings to their individual unisensory counterparts. This research also aims to assess the role of spatio-temporal structure for each sensory modality. The visual and/or auditory stimuli had either temporal or spatio-temporal information available and were presented to the participants in unimodal and bimodal conditions. Globally, the performance was significantly better for the bimodal compared to the unimodal conditions; however, this benefit was limited to only one of the bimodal conditions. In terms of the unimodal conditions, the level of synchronization with visual stimuli was better than auditory, and while there was an observed benefit with the spatio-temporal compared to temporal visual stimulus, this was not replicated with the auditory stimulus. |
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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 63 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 15% |
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 20% |
| Unknown | 6 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 19 | 29% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 12% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 6% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 20% |
| Unknown | 13 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 November 2014.
All research outputs
#18,383,471
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,477
of 3,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,452
of 226,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#24
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 226,903 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.