Mauro Murgia, Valter Prpic, Jenny O, Penny McCullagh, Ilaria Santoro, Alessandra Galmonte, Tiziano Agostini
Abstract
Accurate temporal information processing is critically important in many motor activities within disciplines such as dance, music, and sport. However, it is still unclear how temporal information related to biological motion is processed by expert and non-expert performers. It is well-known that the auditory modality dominates the visual modality in processing temporal information of simple stimuli, and that experts outperform non-experts in biological motion perception. In the present study, we combined these two areas of research; we investigated how experts and non-experts detected temporal deviations in tap dance sequences, in the auditory modality compared to the visual modality. We found that temporal deviations were better detected in the auditory modality compared to the visual modality, and by experts compared to non-experts. However, post hoc analyses indicated that these effects were mainly due to performances obtained by experts in the auditory modality. The results suggest that the experience advantage is not equally distributed across the modalities, and that tap dance experience enhances the effectiveness of the auditory modality but not the visual modality when processing temporal information. The present results and their potential implications are discussed in both temporal information processing and biological motion perception frameworks.
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 02 September 2017.
All research outputs
#14,950,579
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,248
of 30,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,386
of 317,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#407
of 584 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 317,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 584 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.
