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 |
The annoyance of snoring
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, June 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00405-008-0750-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alfred Dreher, Tobias Rader, Martin Patscheider, Christine Klemens, Michael Schmidt, Fiona Baker, Richard de la Chaux |
| Abstract |
Is the annoyance of snoring a reliable tool for the measurement of snoring or does it depend more on the sensitivity of the listener? During an automatized hearing experiment, 550 representative snoring sequences, recorded during polysomnography, were randomly presented to ten examiners for the evaluation of their annoyance (0-100). The mean annoyance score for each snoring sound and the covariance parameters for rater and snoring sounds (restricted maximum likelihood method) were calculated. The average annoyance rating of all snoring sequences was 63.9+/-23.0, the most acceptable snoring sequence rating was 49.2+/-28.0, the most annoying rating was 77.7+/-16.4. The covariance parameters were estimated as 28.7% for the rater and 22.3% for the snoring sound. Our results show that the listeners' noise sensitivity is at least equally relevant for the snoring annoyance as the snoring sound itself. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 6% |
| Germany | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 22% |
| Professor | 3 | 17% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 5 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 22% |
| Psychology | 2 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
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 20 March 2012.
All research outputs
#15,242,707
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#1,172
of 3,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,806
of 82,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,034 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 82,124 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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.