↓ Skip to main content

Sensorimotor Synchronization With Auditory and Visual Modalities: Behavioral and Neural Differences

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Sensorimotor Synchronization With Auditory and Visual Modalities: Behavioral and Neural Differences
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2018.00053
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel C. Comstock, Michael J. Hove, Ramesh Balasubramaniam

Abstract

It has long been known that the auditory system is better suited to guide temporally precise behaviors like sensorimotor synchronization (SMS) than the visual system. Although this phenomenon has been studied for many years, the underlying neural and computational mechanisms remain unclear. Growing consensus suggests the existence of multiple, interacting, context-dependent systems, and that reduced precision in visuo-motor timing might be due to the way experimental tasks have been conceived. Indeed, the appropriateness of the stimulus for a given task greatly influences timing performance. In this review, we examine timing differences for sensorimotor synchronization and error correction with auditory and visual sequences, to inspect the underlying neural mechanisms that contribute to modality differences in timing. The disparity between auditory and visual timing likely relates to differences in the processing specialization between auditory and visual modalities (temporal vs. spatial). We propose this difference could offer potential explanation for the differing temporal abilities between modalities. We also offer suggestions as to how these sensory systems interface with motor and timing systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 20%
Student > Master 12 11%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 36 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 24 23%
Psychology 15 14%
Engineering 5 5%
Computer Science 3 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 42 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 14 March 2021.
All research outputs
#5,765,100
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#268
of 1,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,303
of 329,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#9
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,358 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 329,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.