↓ Skip to main content

Predicting Variation of Folk Songs: A Corpus Analysis Study on the Memorability of Melodies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Predicting Variation of Folk Songs: A Corpus Analysis Study on the Memorability of Melodies
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00621
Pubmed ID
Authors

Berit Janssen, John A. Burgoyne, Henkjan Honing

Abstract

We present a hypothesis-driven study on the variation of melody phrases in a collection of Dutch folk songs. We investigate the variation of phrases within the folk songs through a pattern matching method which detects occurrences of these phrases within folk song variants, and ask the question: do the phrases which show less variation have different properties than those which do? We hypothesize that theories on melody recall may predict variation, and as such, investigate phrase length, the position and number of repetitions of a given phrase in the melody in which it occurs, as well as expectancy and motif repetivity. We show that all of these predictors account for the observed variation to a moderate degree, and that, as hypothesized, those phrases vary less which are rather short, contain highly expected melodic material, occur relatively early in the melody, and contain small pitch intervals. A large portion of the variance is left unexplained by the current model, however, which leads us to a discussion of future approaches to study memorability of melodies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 23%
Researcher 3 14%
Professor 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 3 14%
Computer Science 3 14%
Psychology 2 9%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Other 5 23%
Unknown 5 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 April 2017.
All research outputs
#12,972,913
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,817
of 30,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,827
of 309,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#327
of 591 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,112 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 309,706 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 591 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.