↓ Skip to main content

“Right on all Occasions?” – On the Feasibility of Laterality Research Using a Smartphone Dichotic Listening Application

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
“Right on all Occasions?” – On the Feasibility of Laterality Research Using a Smartphone Dichotic Listening Application
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00042
Pubmed ID
Authors

Josef J. Bless, René Westerhausen, Joanne Arciuli, Kristiina Kompus, Magne Gudmundsen, Kenneth Hugdahl

Abstract

Most psychological experimentation takes place in laboratories aiming to maximize experimental control; however, this creates artificial environments that are not representative of real-life situations. Since cognitive processes usually take place in noisy environments, they should also be tested in these contexts. The recent advent of smartphone technology provides an ideal medium for such testing. In order to examine the feasibility of mobile devices (MD) in psychological research in general, and laterality research in particular, we developed a MD version of the widely used speech laterality test, the consonant-vowel dichotic listening (DL) paradigm, for use with iPhones/iPods. First, we evaluated the retest reliability and concurrent validity of the DL paradigm in its MD version in two samples tested in controlled, laboratory settings (Experiment 1). Second, we explored its ecological validity by collecting data from the general population by means of a free release of the MD version (iDichotic) to the iTunes App Store (Experiment 2). The results of Experiment 1 indicated high reliability (r(ICC) = 0.78) and validity (r(ICC) = 0.76-0.82) of the MD version, which consistently showed the expected right ear advantage (REA). When tested in real-life settings (Experiment 2), participants (N = 167) also showed a significant REA. Importantly, the size of the REA was not dependent on whether the participants chose to listen to the syllables in their native language or not. Together, these results establish the current MD version as a valid and reliable method for administering the DL paradigm both in experimentally controlled as well as uncontrolled settings. Furthermore, the present findings support the feasibility of using smartphones in conducting large-scale field experiments.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Germany 2 3%
Portugal 1 2%
Finland 1 2%
New Zealand 1 2%
Unknown 56 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 29%
Student > Master 10 16%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 43%
Neuroscience 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 11 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 12 August 2020.
All research outputs
#798,776
of 23,864,690 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,640
of 31,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,470
of 285,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#84
of 968 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,864,690 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,831 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 285,993 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 968 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.