↓ Skip to main content

Tonal cues modulate line bisection performance: preliminary evidence for a new rehabilitation prospect?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Tonal cues modulate line bisection performance: preliminary evidence for a new rehabilitation prospect?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00704
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masami Ishihara, Patrice Revol, Sophie Jacquin-Courtois, Romaine Mayet, Gilles Rode, Dominique Boisson, Alessandro Farnè, Yves Rossetti

Abstract

The effect of the presentation of two different auditory pitches (high and low) on manual line-bisection performance was studied to investigate the relationship between space and magnitude representations underlying motor acts. Participants were asked to mark the midpoint of a given line with a pen while they were listening a pitch via headphones. In healthy participants, the effect of the presentation order (blocked or alternative way) of auditory stimuli was tested (Experiment 1). The results showed no biasing effect of pitch in blocked-order presentation, whereas the alternative presentation modulated the line-bisection. Lower pitch produced leftward or downward bisection biases whereas higher pitch produced rightward or upward biases, suggesting that visuomotor processing can be spatially modulated by irrelevant auditory cues. In Experiment 2, the effect of such alternative stimulations in line bisection in right brain damaged patients with a unilateral neglect and without a neglect was tested. Similar biasing effects caused by auditory cues were observed although the white noise presentation also affected the patient's performance. Additionally, the effect of pitch difference was larger for the neglect patient than for the no-neglect patient as well as for healthy participants. The neglect patient's bisection performance gradually improved during the experiment and was maintained even after 1 week. It is therefore, concluded that auditory cues, characterized by both the pitch difference and the dynamic alternation, influence spatial representations. The larger biasing effect seen in the neglect patient compared to the no-neglect patient and healthy participants suggests that auditory cues could modulate the direction of the attentional bias that is characteristic of neglect patients. Thus, the alternative presentation of auditory cues could be used as rehabilitation for neglect patients. The space-pitch associations are discussed in terms of a generalized magnitude system.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 39 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 22%
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 9 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Computer Science 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 12 29%
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 07 October 2013.
All research outputs
#20,205,224
of 22,725,280 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,874
of 29,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,792
of 280,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#851
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,725,280 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 29,536 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 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 280,762 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 969 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.