↓ Skip to main content

Rhythmic movement is attracted more strongly to auditory than to visual rhythms

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, September 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
216 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
256 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Rhythmic movement is attracted more strongly to auditory than to visual rhythms
Published in
Psychological Research, September 2003
DOI 10.1007/s00426-003-0143-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno H. Repp, Amandine Penel

Abstract

People often move in synchrony with auditory rhythms (e.g., music), whereas synchronization of movement with purely visual rhythms is rare. In two experiments, this apparent attraction of movement to auditory rhythms was investigated by requiring participants to tap their index finger in synchrony with an isochronous auditory (tone) or visual (flashing light) target sequence while a distractor sequence was presented in the other modality at one of various phase relationships. The obtained asynchronies and their variability showed that auditory distractors strongly attracted participants' taps, whereas visual distractors had much weaker effects, if any. This asymmetry held regardless of the spatial congruence or relative salience of the stimuli in the two modalities. When different irregular timing patterns were imposed on target and distractor sequences, participants' taps tended to track the timing pattern of auditory distractor sequences when they were approximately in phase with visual target sequences, but not the reverse. These results confirm that rhythmic movement is more strongly attracted to auditory than to visual rhythms. To the extent that this is an innate proclivity, it may have been an important factor in the evolution of music.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 2%
United States 4 2%
Germany 3 1%
France 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Greece 2 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 6 2%
Unknown 229 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 25%
Researcher 61 24%
Student > Master 22 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 20 8%
Student > Bachelor 20 8%
Other 44 17%
Unknown 24 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 96 38%
Neuroscience 25 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 7%
Arts and Humanities 14 5%
Engineering 13 5%
Other 50 20%
Unknown 39 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 21 August 2016.
All research outputs
#4,649,598
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#173
of 963 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,396
of 49,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 963 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 49,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them