| Title |
Effect of temporal predictability on the neural processing of self-triggered auditory stimulation during vocalization
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Neuroscience, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2202-13-55 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhaocong Chen, Xi Chen, Peng Liu, Dongfeng Huang, Hanjun Liu |
| Abstract |
Sensory consequences of our own actions are perceived differently from the sensory stimuli that are generated externally. The present event-related potential (ERP) study examined the neural responses to self-triggered stimulation relative to externally-triggered stimulation as a function of delays between the motor act and the stimulus onset. While sustaining a vowel phonation, subjects clicked a mouse and heard pitch-shift stimuli (PSS) in voice auditory feedback at delays of either 0 ms (predictable) or 500-1000 ms (unpredictable). The motor effect resulting from the mouse click was corrected in the data analyses. For the externally-triggered condition, PSS were delivered by a computer with a delay of 500-1000 ms after the vocal onset. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 12 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 17 | 27% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 25% |
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 22 December 2012.
All research outputs
#15,382,064
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neuroscience
#596
of 1,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,746
of 171,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neuroscience
#13
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,288 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 171,139 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.