↓ Skip to main content

Using historical accounts of harpsichord touch to empirically investigate the production and perception of dynamics on the 1788 Taskin

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Using historical accounts of harpsichord touch to empirically investigate the production and perception of dynamics on the 1788 Taskin
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00183
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer MacRitchie, Giulia Nuti

Abstract

This article investigates the extent of production and perception of dynamic differences on a French historical harpsichord, extensively revised in 1788 by Pascal Taskin. A historical review reports on the descriptions of two different types of touch found in treatises of the 18th century. These two touches (loud/struck and soft/pressed) were used to perform single tones on the lower, upper, peau de buffle (PDB) registers (the last of which Taskin is credited with having invented) and the coupled 8-foot registers to investigate differences in dynamics. Acoustic measurements show varied differences of up to 11 dB for the two types of touch over different pitches in each register. The strongest difference is measured in the first harmonic of note F2 on the PDB. A listening experiment was conducted to test whether these differences are perceivable. Participants performed a discrimination task using pairs of single tones. Participants were able to perform significantly better than chance in correctly identifying whether pairs of single tones were same or different with respect to loudness [t(24) = 12.01, p < 0.001]. Accuracies were influenced by pitch and register, the PDB providing the strongest accuracies over the four registers tested.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 8%
Unknown 11 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 33%
Researcher 3 25%
Unspecified 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 2 17%
Psychology 2 17%
Unspecified 1 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 8%
Computer Science 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Unknown 3 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 July 2023.
All research outputs
#5,792,976
of 24,024,220 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,224
of 32,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,902
of 262,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#174
of 451 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,024,220 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 262,821 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 451 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.