↓ Skip to main content

Modulation of Auditory Evoked Magnetic Fields Elicited by Successive Frequency-Modulated (FM) Sweeps

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Modulation of Auditory Evoked Magnetic Fields Elicited by Successive Frequency-Modulated (FM) Sweeps
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00036
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hidehiko Okamoto, Ryusuke Kakigi

Abstract

In our daily life, we are successively exposed to frequency-modulated (FM) sounds that play an important role in speech and species-specific communication. Previous studies demonstrated that repetitive exposure to identical pure tones resulted in decreased neural activity. However, the effects of repetitively presented FM sounds on neural activity in the human auditory cortex remain unclear. In the present study, we used magnetoencephalography to investigate auditory evoked N1m responses elicited by four successive temporally repeated and superimposed FM sweeps in three sequences: (1) four FM sweeps were identical, (2) four FM sweeps had the same FM direction and rate, but different carrier frequencies, (3) four FM sweeps differed with respect to the FM rate and/or direction and their carrier frequencies. In contrast to our expectations, the results obtained demonstrated that N1m responses were maximal when the four FM sweeps were identical and minimal when they were distinct. These results suggest that the neural processing of repetitive FM sweeps in the human auditory cortex may differ from that of repetitive pure tones.

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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 36%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 18%
Librarian 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 3 27%
Psychology 3 27%
Engineering 2 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 9%
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 08 February 2017.
All research outputs
#20,402,251
of 22,952,268 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,556
of 7,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#356,074
of 420,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#172
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,952,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,179 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 420,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.