↓ Skip to main content

The acquisition process of musical tonal schema: implications from connectionist modeling

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
The acquisition process of musical tonal schema: implications from connectionist modeling
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01348
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rie Matsunaga, Pitoyo Hartono, Jun-ichi Abe

Abstract

Using connectionist modeling, we address fundamental questions concerning the acquisition process of musical tonal schema of listeners. Compared to models of previous studies, our connectionist model (Learning Network for Tonal Schema, LeNTS) was better equipped to fulfill three basic requirements. Specifically, LeNTS was equipped with a learning mechanism, bound by culture-general properties, and trained by sufficient melody materials. When exposed to Western music, LeNTS acquired musical 'scale' sensitivity early and 'harmony' sensitivity later. The order of acquisition of scale and harmony sensitivities shown by LeNTS was consistent with the culture-specific acquisition order shown by musically westernized children. The implications of these results for the acquisition process of a tonal schema of listeners are as follows: (a) the acquisition process may entail small and incremental changes, rather than large and stage-like changes, in corresponding neural circuits; (b) the speed of schema acquisition may mainly depend on musical experiences rather than maturation; and

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 25%
Student > Master 4 25%
Researcher 3 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Professor 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 50%
Computer Science 2 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Mathematics 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 1 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,291,881
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,104
of 29,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,409
of 267,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#523
of 551 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,801 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 267,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 551 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.