↓ Skip to main content

Entrainment and motor emulation approaches to joint action: Alternatives or complementary approaches?

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Entrainment and motor emulation approaches to joint action: Alternatives or complementary approaches?
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00754
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lincoln J. Colling, Kellie Williamson

Abstract

Joint actions, such as music and dance, rely crucially on the ability of two, or more, agents to align their actions with great temporal precision. Within the literature that seeks to explain how this action alignment is possible, two broad approaches have appeared. The first, what we term the entrainment approach, has sought to explain these alignment phenomena in terms of the behavioral dynamics of the system of two agents. The second, what we term the emulator approach, has sought to explain these alignment phenomena in terms of mechanisms, such as forward and inverse models, that are implemented in the brain. They have often been pitched as alternative explanations of the same phenomena; however, we argue that this view is mistaken, because, as we show, these two approaches are engaged in distinct, and not mutually exclusive, explanatory tasks. While the entrainment approach seeks to uncover the general laws that govern behavior the emulator approach seeks to uncover mechanisms. We argue that is possible to do both and that the entrainment approach must pay greater attention to the mechanisms that support the behavioral dynamics of interest. In short, the entrainment approach must be transformed into a neuroentrainment approach by adopting a mechanistic view of explanation and by seeking mechanisms that are implemented in the brain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 29 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 42%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Professor 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 52%
Neuroscience 5 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 2 6%
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 04 November 2014.
All research outputs
#15,617,972
of 26,178,431 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,265
of 7,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,175
of 264,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#161
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,178,431 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 264,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.