↓ Skip to main content

Different Types of Sounds and Their Relationship With the Electrocardiographic Signals and the Cardiovascular System – Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Different Types of Sounds and Their Relationship With the Electrocardiographic Signals and the Cardiovascular System – Review
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00525
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ennio H. Idrobo-Ávila, Humberto Loaiza-Correa, Leon van Noorden, Flavio G. Muñoz-Bolaños, Rubiel Vargas-Cañas

Abstract

Background: For some time now, the effects of sound, noise, and music on the human body have been studied. However, despite research done through time, it is still not completely clear what influence, interaction, and effects sounds have on human body. That is why it is necessary to conduct new research on this topic. Thus, in this paper, a systematic review is undertaken in order to integrate research related to several types of sound, both pleasant and unpleasant, specifically noise and music. In addition, it includes as much research as possible to give stakeholders a more general vision about relevant elements regarding methodologies, study subjects, stimulus, analysis, and experimental designs in general. This study has been conducted in order to make a genuine contribution to this area and to perhaps to raise the quality of future research about sound and its effects over ECG signals. Methods: This review was carried out by independent researchers, through three search equations, in four different databases, including: engineering, medicine, and psychology. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and studies published between 1999 and 2017 were considered. The selected documents were read and analyzed independently by each group of researchers and subsequently conclusions were established between all of them. Results: Despite the differences between the outcomes of selected studies, some common factors were found among them. Thus, in noise studies where both BP and HR increased or tended to increase, it was noted that HRV (HF and LF/HF) changes with both sound and noise stimuli, whereas GSR changes with sound and musical stimuli. Furthermore, LF also showed changes with exposure to noise. Conclusion: In many cases, samples displayed a limitation in experimental design, and in diverse studies, there was a lack of a control group. There was a lot of variability in the presented stimuli providing a wide overview of the effects they could produce in humans. In the listening sessions, there were numerous examples of good practice in experimental design, such as the use of headphones and comfortable positions for study subjects, while the listening sessions lasted 20 min in most of the studies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 17%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Professor 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 10 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Psychology 4 7%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 22 37%
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 22 March 2020.
All research outputs
#14,131,870
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#4,970
of 13,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,271
of 330,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#206
of 476 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 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 13,833 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 330,125 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 476 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.