↓ Skip to main content

The effect of musical expertise on the representation of space

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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 effect of musical expertise on the representation of space
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00250
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlotta Lega, Zaira Cattaneo, Lotfi B. Merabet, Tomaso Vecchi, Silvia Cucchi

Abstract

Consistent evidence suggests that pitch height may be represented in a spatial format, having both a vertical and a horizontal representation. The spatial representation of pitch height results into response compatibility effects for which high pitch tones are preferentially associated to up-right responses, and low pitch tones are preferentially associated to down-left responses (i.e., the Spatial-Musical Association of Response Codes (SMARC) effect), with the strength of these associations depending on individuals' musical skills. In this study we investigated whether listening to tones of different pitch affects the representation of external space, as assessed in a visual and haptic line bisection paradigm, in musicians and non musicians. Low and high pitch tones affected the bisection performance in musicians differently, both when pitch was relevant and irrelevant for the task, and in both the visual and the haptic modality. No effect of pitch height was observed on the bisection performance of non musicians. Moreover, our data also show that musicians present a (supramodal) rightward bisection bias in both the visual and the haptic modality, extending previous findings limited to the visual modality, and consistent with the idea that intense practice with musical notation and bimanual instrument training affects hemispheric lateralization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 67 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 26%
Researcher 15 22%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 43%
Neuroscience 6 9%
Arts and Humanities 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Computer Science 4 6%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 9 13%
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 30 June 2014.
All research outputs
#13,915,028
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,301
of 7,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,276
of 227,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#156
of 215 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 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 7,138 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 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 227,008 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 215 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.