↓ Skip to main content

The Paradox of Isochrony in the Evolution of Human Rhythm

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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 Paradox of Isochrony in the Evolution of Human Rhythm
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01820
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Ravignani, Guy Madison

Abstract

Isochrony is crucial to the rhythm of human music. Some neural, behavioral and anatomical traits underlying rhythm perception and production are shared with a broad range of species. These may either have a common evolutionary origin, or have evolved into similar traits under different evolutionary pressures. Other traits underlying rhythm are rare across species, only found in humans and few other animals. Isochrony, or stable periodicity, is common to most human music, but isochronous behaviors are also found in many species. It appears paradoxical that humans are particularly good at producing and perceiving isochronous patterns, although this ability does not conceivably confer any evolutionary advantage to modern humans. This article will attempt to solve this conundrum. To this end, we define the concept of isochrony from the present functional perspective of physiology, cognitive neuroscience, signal processing, and interactive behavior, and review available evidence on isochrony in the signals of humans and other animals. We then attempt to resolve the paradox of isochrony by expanding an evolutionary hypothesis about the function that isochronous behavior may have had in early hominids. Finally, we propose avenues for empirical research to examine this hypothesis and to understand the evolutionary origin of isochrony in general.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 18%
Student > Master 18 15%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Professor 8 7%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 24 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 14%
Neuroscience 16 14%
Linguistics 12 10%
Arts and Humanities 6 5%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 25 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 03 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,892,796
of 24,340,143 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,803
of 32,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,211
of 335,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#96
of 603 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,340,143 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,770 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 done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 335,337 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 603 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.