↓ Skip to main content

Haptics in Music: The Effects of Vibrotactile Stimulus in Low Frequency Auditory Difference Detection Tasks

Overview of attention for article published in IEEE Transactions on Haptics, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
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.
Title
Haptics in Music: The Effects of Vibrotactile Stimulus in Low Frequency Auditory Difference Detection Tasks
Published in
IEEE Transactions on Haptics, December 2016
DOI 10.1109/toh.2016.2646370
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gareth W. Young, Dave Murphy, Jeffrey Weeter

Abstract

We present an experiment that investigated the effect of vibrotactile stimulation in auditory pitch discrimination tasks. Extra-auditory information was expected to have some influence upon the frequency discrimination of auditory Just Noticeable Difference (JND) detection levels at 160 Hz. To measure this, the potential to correctly identified positive and negative frequency changes for two randomly divided groups was measured and then compared. The first group was given an audio only JND test and the second group was given the same test, but with additional vibrotactile stimulus delivered via a vibrating glove device. The results of the experiment suggest that in musical interactions involving the selection of specific pitches, or the detection of pitch variation, vibrotactile feedback may have some advantageous effect upon a musician's ability to perceive changes when presented in synchrony with auditory stimulus.

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Switzerland 1 3%
Unknown 35 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 24%
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 8 22%
Computer Science 5 14%
Engineering 5 14%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 October 2017.
All research outputs
#19,947,956
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from IEEE Transactions on Haptics
#239
of 284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#304,732
of 422,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from IEEE Transactions on Haptics
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 422,417 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.