↓ Skip to main content

Moving to the Beat and Singing are Linked in Humans

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Moving to the Beat and Singing are Linked in Humans
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00663
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simone Dalla Bella, Magdalena Berkowska, Jakub Sowiński

Abstract

The abilities to sing and to move to the beat of a rhythmic auditory stimulus emerge early during development, and both engage perceptual, motor, and sensorimotor processes. These similarities between singing and synchronization to a beat may be rooted in biology. Patel (2008) has suggested that motor synchronization to auditory rhythms may have emerged during evolution as a byproduct of selection for vocal learning ("vocal learning and synchronization hypothesis"). This view predicts a strong link between vocal performance and synchronization skills in humans. Here, we tested this prediction by asking occasional singers to tap along with auditory pulse trains and to imitate familiar melodies. Both vocal imitation and synchronization skills were measured in terms of accuracy and precision or consistency. Accurate and precise singers tapped more in the vicinity of the pacing stimuli (i.e., they were more accurate) than less accurate and less precise singers. Moreover, accurate singers were more consistent when tapping to the beat. These differences cannot be ascribed to basic motor skills or to motivational factors. Individual differences in terms of singing proficiency and synchronization skills may reflect the variability of a shared sensorimotor translation mechanism.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Unknown 90 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 17%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 7%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 29%
Neuroscience 18 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Arts and Humanities 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 18 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 21 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,715,502
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,097
of 7,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,426
of 390,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#46
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,271 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 390,779 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 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 68% of its contemporaries.