Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Dental Research
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zampini, M.
Right arrow Articles by Spence, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zampini, M.
Right arrow Articles by Spence, C.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Dental Health
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Role of Auditory Cues in Modulating the Perception of Electric Toothbrushes

M. Zampini1,*, S. Guest2 and C. Spence1,*

1 Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3UD, UK; and
2 School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7450, USA;


Figure 1
View larger version (73K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Schematic view of the apparatus and participant. Note that the door of the booth was closed during the experiment. Participants viewed the response scales (25 cm wide) on the computer monitor situated approximately 50 cm from the participant through the window in the side wall of the booth.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2. Mean responses for the (a) unpleasant-pleasant, and (b) rough-smooth response scales for the three overall attenuation levels (0 dB, –20 dB, or –40 dB) against the three frequency manipulations (high frequencies attenuated, veridical auditory feedback, or high frequencies amplified). Each data point reflects the average of 100 trials (5 trials for each participant). Error bars represent the between-participants standard errors of the mean.

 

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 82, No. 11, 929-932 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910308201116
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?