↓ Skip to main content

Neuromagnetic brain activities associated with perceptual categorization and sound-content incongruency: a comparison between monosyllabic words and pitch names

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Neuromagnetic brain activities associated with perceptual categorization and sound-content incongruency: a comparison between monosyllabic words and pitch names
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00455
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chen-Gia Tsai, Chien-Chung Chen, Ya-Chien Wen, Tai-Li Chou

Abstract

In human cultures, the perceptual categorization of musical pitches relies on pitch-naming systems. A sung pitch name concurrently holds the information of fundamental frequency and pitch name. These two aspects may be either congruent or incongruent with regard to pitch categorization. The present study aimed to compare the neuromagnetic responses to musical and verbal stimuli for congruency judgments, for example a congruent pair for the pitch C4 sung with the pitch name do in a C-major context (the pitch-semantic task) or for the meaning of a word to match the speaker's identity (the voice-semantic task). Both the behavioral data and neuromagnetic data showed that congruency detection of the speaker's identity and word meaning was slower than that of the pitch and pitch name. Congruency effects of musical stimuli revealed that pitch categorization and semantic processing of pitch information were associated with P2m and N400m, respectively. For verbal stimuli, P2m and N400m did not show any congruency effect. In both the pitch-semantic task and the voice-semantic task, we found that incongruent stimuli evoked stronger slow waves with the latency of 500-600 ms than congruent stimuli. These findings shed new light on the neural mechanisms underlying pitch-naming processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Professor 1 7%
Lecturer 1 7%
Other 4 27%
Unknown 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 27%
Neuroscience 3 20%
Computer Science 1 7%
Linguistics 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 August 2015.
All research outputs
#20,288,585
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,537
of 7,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,241
of 266,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#114
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 266,077 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.