↓ Skip to main content

Cross-cultural influences on rhythm processing: reproduction, discrimination, and beat tapping

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
119 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
Cross-cultural influences on rhythm processing: reproduction, discrimination, and beat tapping
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00366
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J. Cameron, Jocelyn Bentley, Jessica A. Grahn

Abstract

The structures of musical rhythm differ between cultures, despite the fact that the ability to entrain movement to musical rhythm occurs in virtually all individuals across cultures. To measure the influence of culture on rhythm processing, we tested East African and North American adults on perception, production, and beat tapping for rhythms derived from East African and Western music. To assess rhythm perception, participants identified whether pairs of rhythms were the same or different. To assess rhythm production, participants reproduced rhythms after hearing them. To assess beat tapping, participants tapped the beat along with repeated rhythms. We expected that performance in all three tasks would be influenced by the culture of the participant and the culture of the rhythm. Specifically, we predicted that a participant's ability to discriminate, reproduce, and accurately tap the beat would be better for rhythms from their own culture than for rhythms from another culture. In the rhythm discrimination task, there were no differences in discriminating culturally familiar and unfamiliar rhythms. In the rhythm reproduction task, both groups reproduced East African rhythms more accurately than Western rhythms, but East African participants also showed an effect of cultural familiarity, leading to a significant interaction. In the beat tapping task, participants in both groups tapped the beat more accurately for culturally familiar than for unfamiliar rhythms. Moreover, there were differences between the two participant groups, and between the two types of rhythms, in the metrical level selected for beat tapping. The results demonstrate that culture does influence the processing of musical rhythm. In terms of the function of musical rhythm, our results are consistent with theories that musical rhythm enables synchronization. Musical rhythm may foster musical cultural identity by enabling within-group synchronization to music, perhaps supporting social cohesion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 114 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 21%
Student > Master 15 13%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 24 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 37 31%
Neuroscience 18 15%
Arts and Humanities 9 8%
Computer Science 4 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 24 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,569,816
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,131
of 29,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,046
of 264,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#64
of 469 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,404 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 done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 264,787 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 469 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.