↓ Skip to main content

The Shepard–Risset glissando: music that moves you

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
The Shepard–Risset glissando: music that moves you
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00221-017-5033-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca A. Mursic, Bernhard E. Riecke, Deborah Apthorp, Stephen Palmisano

Abstract

Sounds are thought to contribute to the perceptions of self-motion, often via higher-level, cognitive mechanisms. This study examined whether illusory self-motion (i.e. vection) could be induced by auditory metaphorical motion stimulation (without providing any spatialized or low-level sensory information consistent with self-motion). Five different types of auditory stimuli were presented in mono to our 20 blindfolded, stationary participants (via a loud speaker array): (1) an ascending Shepard-Risset glissando; (2) a descending Shepard-Risset glissando; (3) a combined Shepard-Risset glissando; (4) a combined-adjusted (loudness-controlled) Shepard-Risset glissando; and (5) a white-noise control stimulus. We found that auditory vection was consistently induced by all four Shepard-Risset glissandi compared to the white-noise control. This metaphorical auditory vection appeared similar in strength to the vection induced by the visual reference stimulus simulating vertical self-motion. Replicating past visual vection findings, we also found that individual differences in postural instability appeared to significantly predict auditory vection strength ratings. These findings are consistent with the notion that auditory contributions to self-motion perception may be predominantly due to higher-level cognitive factors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 19%
Researcher 3 19%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Other 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 69%
Neuroscience 2 13%
Computer Science 1 6%
Energy 1 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Other 0 0%

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 24 July 2018.
All research outputs
#10,134,344
of 13,272,830 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#1,625
of 2,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,157
of 265,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#38
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,272,830 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,272 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 265,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.