↓ Skip to main content

Have We Forgotten Auditory Sensory Memory? Retention Intervals in Studies of Nonverbal Auditory Working Memory

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Have We Forgotten Auditory Sensory Memory? Retention Intervals in Studies of Nonverbal Auditory Working Memory
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01892
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael A Nees

Abstract

Researchers have shown increased interest in mechanisms of working memory for nonverbal sounds such as music and environmental sounds. These studies often have used two-stimulus comparison tasks: two sounds separated by a brief retention interval (often 3-5 s) are compared, and a "same" or "different" judgment is recorded. Researchers seem to have assumed that sensory memory has a negligible impact on performance in auditory two-stimulus comparison tasks. This assumption is examined in detail in this comment. According to seminal texts and recent research reports, sensory memory persists in parallel with working memory for a period of time following hearing a stimulus and can influence behavioral responses on memory tasks. Unlike verbal working memory studies that use serial recall tasks, research paradigms for exploring nonverbal working memory-especially two-stimulus comparison tasks-may not be differentiating working memory from sensory memory processes in analyses of behavioral responses, because retention interval durations have not excluded the possibility that the sensory memory trace drives task performance. This conflation of different constructs may be one contributor to discrepant research findings and the resulting proliferation of theoretical conjectures regarding mechanisms of working memory for nonverbal sounds.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 65 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 20%
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Other 5 8%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 32%
Neuroscience 14 21%
Linguistics 4 6%
Engineering 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 13 20%
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 09 December 2016.
All research outputs
#17,022,775
of 25,013,458 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,868
of 33,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#263,697
of 427,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#287
of 417 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,013,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,788 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 427,401 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 417 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.