↓ Skip to main content

Native Experience with a Tone Language Enhances Pitch Discrimination and the Timing of Neural Responses to Pitch Change

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

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
Native Experience with a Tone Language Enhances Pitch Discrimination and the Timing of Neural Responses to Pitch Change
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00146
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan J. Giuliano, Peter Q. Pfordresher, Emily M. Stanley, Shalini Narayana, Nicole Y. Y. Wicha

Abstract

Native tone language experience has been linked with alterations in the production and perception of pitch in language, as well as with the brain response to linguistic and non-linguistic tones. Here we use two experiments to address whether these changes apply to the discrimination of simple pitch changes and pitch intervals. Event related potentials (ERPs) were recorded from native Mandarin speakers and a control group during a same/different task with pairs of pure tones differing only in pitch height, and with pure tone pairs differing only in interval distance. Behaviorally, Mandarin speakers were more accurate than controls at detecting both pitch and interval changes, showing a sensitivity to small pitch changes and interval distances that was absent in the control group. Converging evidence from ERPs obtained during the same tasks revealed an earlier response to change relative to no-change trials in Mandarin speakers, as well as earlier differentiation of trials by change direction relative to controls. These findings illustrate the cross-domain influence of language experience on the perception of pitch, suggesting that the native use of tonal pitch contours in language leads to a general enhancement in the acuity of pitch representations.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Netherlands 1 1%
China 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 89 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 22%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Master 8 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 7%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 27%
Linguistics 16 17%
Neuroscience 10 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 22 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 April 2012.
All research outputs
#15,191,552
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,107
of 29,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,924
of 180,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#180
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,353 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 180,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.