↓ Skip to main content

Making and monitoring errors based on altered auditory feedback

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Making and monitoring errors based on altered auditory feedback
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00914
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Q. Pfordresher, Robertson T. E. Beasley

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that altered auditory feedback (AAF) disrupts music performance and causes disruptions in both action planning and the perception of feedback events. It has been proposed that this disruption occurs because of interference within a shared representation for perception and action (Pfordresher, 2006). Studies reported here address this claim from the standpoint of error monitoring. In Experiment 1 participants performed short melodies on a keyboard while hearing no auditory feedback, normal auditory feedback, or alterations to feedback pitch on some subset of events. Participants overestimated error frequency when AAF was present but not for normal feedback. Experiment 2 introduced a concurrent load task to determine whether error monitoring requires executive resources. Although the concurrent task enhanced the effect of AAF, it did not alter participants' tendency to overestimate errors when AAF was present. A third correlational study addressed whether effects of AAF are reduced for a subset of the population who may lack the kind of perception/action associations that lead to AAF disruption: poor-pitch singers. Effects of manipulations similar to those presented in Experiments 1 and 2 were reduced for these individuals. We propose that these results are consistent with the notion that AAF interference is based on associations between perception and action within a forward internal model of auditory-motor relationships.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 42 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 19%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Professor 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 34%
Neuroscience 4 9%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 28%
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 16 April 2015.
All research outputs
#15,518,326
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,640
of 34,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,957
of 246,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#250
of 387 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,411 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 246,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 387 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.