↓ Skip to main content

Complementary fMRI and EEG evidence for more efficient neural processing of rhythmic vs. unpredictably timed sounds

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 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 (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Complementary fMRI and EEG evidence for more efficient neural processing of rhythmic vs. unpredictably timed sounds
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01663
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nienke van Atteveldt, Gabriella Musacchia, Elana Zion-Golumbic, Pejman Sehatpour, Daniel C. Javitt, Charles Schroeder

Abstract

The brain's fascinating ability to adapt its internal neural dynamics to the temporal structure of the sensory environment is becoming increasingly clear. It is thought to be metabolically beneficial to align ongoing oscillatory activity to the relevant inputs in a predictable stream, so that they will enter at optimal processing phases of the spontaneously occurring rhythmic excitability fluctuations. However, some contexts have a more predictable temporal structure than others. Here, we tested the hypothesis that the processing of rhythmic sounds is more efficient than the processing of irregularly timed sounds. To do this, we simultaneously measured functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electro-encephalograms (EEG) while participants detected oddball target sounds in alternating blocks of rhythmic (e.g., with equal inter-stimulus intervals) or random (e.g., with randomly varied inter-stimulus intervals) tone sequences. Behaviorally, participants detected target sounds faster and more accurately when embedded in rhythmic streams. The fMRI response in the auditory cortex was stronger during random compared to random tone sequence processing. Simultaneously recorded N1 responses showed larger peak amplitudes and longer latencies for tones in the random (vs. the rhythmic) streams. These results reveal complementary evidence for more efficient neural and perceptual processing during temporally predictable sensory contexts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Austria 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 64 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 21%
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 31%
Neuroscience 12 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 18 26%
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 26 January 2016.
All research outputs
#5,755,051
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,299
of 31,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,008
of 285,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#146
of 488 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 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 31,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 285,754 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 488 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 70% of its contemporaries.