↓ Skip to main content

Chorusing, synchrony, and the evolutionary functions of rhythm

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
29 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
226 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
Chorusing, synchrony, and the evolutionary functions of rhythm
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01118
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Ravignani, Daniel L Bowling, W Tecumseh Fitch

Abstract

A central goal of biomusicology is to understand the biological basis of human musicality. One approach to this problem has been to compare core components of human musicality (relative pitch perception, entrainment, etc.) with similar capacities in other animal species. Here we extend and clarify this comparative approach with respect to rhythm. First, whereas most comparisons between human music and animal acoustic behavior have focused on spectral properties (melody and harmony), we argue for the central importance of temporal properties, and propose that this domain is ripe for further comparative research. Second, whereas most rhythm research in non-human animals has examined animal timing in isolation, we consider how chorusing dynamics can shape individual timing, as in human music and dance, arguing that group behavior is key to understanding the adaptive functions of rhythm. To illustrate the interdependence between individual and chorusing dynamics, we present a computational model of chorusing agents relating individual call timing with synchronous group behavior. Third, we distinguish and clarify mechanistic and functional explanations of rhythmic phenomena, often conflated in the literature, arguing that this distinction is key for understanding the evolution of musicality. Fourth, we expand biomusicological discussions beyond the species typically considered, providing an overview of chorusing and rhythmic behavior across a broad range of taxa (orthopterans, fireflies, frogs, birds, and primates). Finally, we propose an "Evolving Signal Timing" hypothesis, suggesting that similarities between timing abilities in biological species will be based on comparable chorusing behaviors. We conclude that the comparative study of chorusing species can provide important insights into the adaptive function(s) of rhythmic behavior in our "proto-musical" primate ancestors, and thus inform our understanding of the biology and evolution of rhythm in human music and language.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Philippines 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 216 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 23%
Student > Master 34 15%
Researcher 31 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 43 19%
Unknown 34 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 53 23%
Psychology 50 22%
Neuroscience 25 11%
Arts and Humanities 12 5%
Computer Science 8 4%
Other 35 15%
Unknown 43 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 80. 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 26 January 2021.
All research outputs
#511,591
of 24,688,240 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,046
of 33,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,203
of 316,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#13
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,688,240 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 316,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.