↓ Skip to main content

Enhanced timing abilities in percussionists generalize to rhythms without a musical beat

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Enhanced timing abilities in percussionists generalize to rhythms without a musical beat
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.01003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J. Cameron, Jessica A. Grahn

Abstract

The ability to entrain movements to music is arguably universal, but it is unclear how specialized training may influence this. Previous research suggests that percussionists have superior temporal precision in perception and production tasks. Such superiority may be limited to temporal sequences that resemble real music or, alternatively, may generalize to musically implausible sequences. To test this, percussionists and nonpercussionists completed two tasks that used rhythmic sequences varying in musical plausibility. In the beat tapping task, participants tapped with the beat of a rhythmic sequence over 3 stages: finding the beat (as an initial sequence played), continuation of the beat (as a second sequence was introduced and played simultaneously), and switching to a second beat (the initial sequence finished, leaving only the second). The meters of the two sequences were either congruent or incongruent, as were their tempi (minimum inter-onset intervals). In the rhythm reproduction task, participants reproduced rhythms of four types, ranging from high to low musical plausibility: Metric simple rhythms induced a strong sense of the beat, metric complex rhythms induced a weaker sense of the beat, nonmetric rhythms had no beat, and jittered nonmetric rhythms also had no beat as well as low temporal predictability. For both tasks, percussionists performed more accurately than nonpercussionists. In addition, both groups were better with musically plausible than implausible conditions. Overall, the percussionists' superior abilities to entrain to, and reproduce, rhythms generalized to musically implausible sequences.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 95 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 19%
Student > Master 18 19%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 36%
Neuroscience 15 16%
Arts and Humanities 5 5%
Linguistics 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 25 26%
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 12 December 2014.
All research outputs
#18,386,678
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,059
of 7,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,587
of 361,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#168
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 361,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.