↓ Skip to main content

Periodic and Aperiodic Synchronization in Skilled Action

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Periodic and Aperiodic Synchronization in Skilled Action
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00170
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fred Cummins

Abstract

Synchronized action is considered as a manifestation of shared skill. Most synchronized behaviors in humans and other animals are based on periodic repetition. Aperiodic synchronization of complex action is found in the experimental task of synchronous speaking, in which naive subjects read a common text in lock step. The demonstration of synchronized behavior without a periodic basis is presented as a challenge for theoretical understanding. A unified treatment of periodic and aperiodic synchronization is suggested by replacing the sequential processing model of cognitivist approaches with the more local notion of a task-specific sensorimotor coordination. On this view, skilled action is the imposition of constraints on the co-variation of movement and sensory flux such that the boundary conditions that define the skill are met. This non-cognitivist approach originates in the work of John Dewey. It allows a unification of the treatment of sensorimotor synchronization in simple rhythmic behavior and in complex skilled behavior and it suggests that skill sharing is a uniquely human trait of considerable import.

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 3 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 3 4%
United States 3 4%
United Kingdom 3 4%
Brazil 1 1%
Finland 1 1%
Unknown 74 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 24%
Researcher 11 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 14 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 32%
Computer Science 9 11%
Linguistics 8 9%
Neuroscience 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 16 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,087,875
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,502
of 7,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,165
of 180,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#70
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 180,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.