↓ Skip to main content

Age-Related Changes in Bimanual Instrument Playing with Rhythmic Cueing

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Age-Related Changes in Bimanual Instrument Playing with Rhythmic Cueing
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01569
Pubmed ID
Authors

Soo Ji Kim, Sung-Rae Cho, Ga Eul Yoo

Abstract

Deficits in bimanual coordination of older adults have been demonstrated to significantly limit their functioning in daily life. As a bimanual sensorimotor task, instrument playing has great potential for motor and cognitive training in advanced age. While the process of matching a person's repetitive movements to auditory rhythmic cueing during instrument playing was documented to involve motor and attentional control, investigation into whether the level of cognitive functioning influences the ability to rhythmically coordinate movement to an external beat in older populations is relatively limited. Therefore, the current study aimed to examine how timing accuracy during bimanual instrument playing with rhythmic cueing differed depending on the degree of participants' cognitive aging. Twenty one young adults, 20 healthy older adults, and 17 older adults with mild dementia participated in this study. Each participant tapped an electronic drum in time to the rhythmic cueing provided using both hands simultaneously and in alternation. During bimanual instrument playing with rhythmic cueing, mean and variability of synchronization errors were measured and compared across the groups and the tempo of cueing during each type of tapping task. Correlations of such timing parameters with cognitive measures were also analyzed. The results showed that the group factor resulted in significant differences in the synchronization errors-related parameters. During bimanual tapping tasks, cognitive decline resulted in differences in synchronization errors between younger adults and older adults with mild dimentia. Also, in terms of variability of synchronization errors, younger adults showed significant differences in maintaining timing performance from older adults with and without mild dementia, which may be attributed to decreased processing time for bimanual coordination due to aging. Significant correlations were observed between variability of synchronization errors and performance of cognitive tasks involving executive control and cognitive flexibility when asked for bimanual coordination in response to external timing cues at adjusted tempi. Also, significant correlations with cognitive measures were more prevalent in variability of synchronization errors during alternative tapping compared to simultaneous tapping. The current study supports that bimanual tapping may be predictive of cognitive processing of older adults. Also, tempo and type of movement required for instrument playing both involve cognitive and motor loads at different levels, and such variables could be important factors for determining the complexity of the task and the involved task requirements for interventions using instrument playing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Master 9 12%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Librarian 4 5%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 23 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Neuroscience 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 27 36%
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 26 September 2017.
All research outputs
#14,362,315
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,245
of 30,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,604
of 320,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#394
of 588 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,225 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 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 320,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 588 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.