↓ Skip to main content

Perception of string quartet synchronization

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Perception of string quartet synchronization
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01115
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alan M. Wing, Satoshi Endo, Tim Yates, Adrian Bradbury

Abstract

Timing variation in small group musical performance results from intentional, expressive, and unintentional, error components in individual player timing. These timing fluctuations produce variability in between-player note asynchrony and require timing adjustments to keep the ensemble together. The size of the adjustments relative to the asynchrony (correction gain) affects the amount and nature of asynchrony variability. We present new listening tests to estimate thresholds for perception of between-player asynchrony variability and to determine whether listeners use differences in the nature of the variability, as well as in its magnitude, to judge asynchrony. In two experiments, computer-simulated ensemble performances of a 48-note excerpt from Haydn Op. 74 No. 1 were generated. Between-player note asynchrony was systematically manipulated in terms of level of within-player timing variability (Experiment 1) and correction gain (Experiment 2). On each trial, participants listened to two samples, one ("target") with more between-player asynchrony variability than the other ("test"), and reported which was "less together." In both experiments, the test sample correction gain was fixed at the statistically optimal value of 0.25 and the within-player timing variability was minimal (zero except for random variability in the initial note). In Experiment 1 the target correction gain was fixed at 0.25 and the timing variability was adjusted over trials by a staircase algorithm designed to converge on the level of asynchrony variability giving 75% correct identification. In Experiment 2 the timing variability in the target was set at half that in Experiment 1 and the correction gain was varied to converge on 75% correct identification. Our results show that the between-player asynchrony variability giving 75% correct identification in Experiment 2 was significantly lower than in Experiment 1. This finding indicates that people are sensitive to both the degree of variance and the micro-structure of the time-series of the asynchronies caused by differences in correction gain when judging lack of togetherness in quartet performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 42%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 26%
Engineering 2 11%
Neuroscience 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 5 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 October 2014.
All research outputs
#12,611,943
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,223
of 29,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,426
of 255,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#199
of 373 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,681 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 255,842 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 373 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.