↓ Skip to main content

Looming sounds are perceived as faster than receding sounds

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Looming sounds are perceived as faster than receding sounds
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41235-016-0017-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

John G. Neuhoff

Abstract

Each year thousands of people are killed by looming motor vehicles. Throughout our evolutionary history looming objects have posed a threat to survival and perceptual systems have evolved unique solutions to confront these environmental challenges. Vision provides an accurate representation of time-to-contact with a looming object and usually allows us to interact successfully with the object if required. However, audition functions as a warning system and yields an anticipatory representation of arrival time, indicating that the object has arrived when it is still some distance away. The bias provides a temporal margin of safety that allows more time to initiate defensive actions. In two studies this bias was shown to influence the perception of the speed of looming and receding sound sources. Listeners heard looming and receding sound sources and judged how fast they were moving. Listeners perceived the speed of looming sounds as faster than that of equivalent receding sounds. Listeners also showed better discrimination of the speed of looming sounds than receding sounds. Finally, close sounds were perceived as faster than distant sounds. The results suggest a prioritization of the perception of the speed of looming and receding sounds that mirrors the level of threat posed by moving objects in the environment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 44 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 28%
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 37%
Neuroscience 6 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Computer Science 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 11 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 05 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,656,240
of 23,275,636 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#107
of 326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,883
of 308,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,275,636 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 326 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 308,842 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.