↓ Skip to main content

Noisy visual feedback training impairs detection of self-generated movement error: implications for anosognosia for hemiplegia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Noisy visual feedback training impairs detection of self-generated movement error: implications for anosognosia for hemiplegia
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00456
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Preston, Roger Newport

Abstract

Anosognosia for hemiplegia (AHP) is characterized as a disorder in which patients are unaware of their contralateral motor deficit. Many current theories for unawareness in AHP are based on comparator model accounts of the normal experience of agency. According to such models, while small mismatches between predicted and actual feedback allow unconscious fine-tuning of normal actions, mismatches that surpass an inherent threshold reach conscious awareness and inform judgments of agency (whether a given movement is produced by the self or another agent). This theory depends on a threshold for consciousness that is greater than the intrinsic noise in the system to reduce the occurrence of incorrect rejections of self-generated movements and maintain a fluid experience of agency. Pathological increases to this threshold could account for reduced motor awareness following brain injury, including AHP. The current experiment tested this hypothesis in healthy controls by exposing them to training in which noise was applied the visual feedback of their normal reaches. Subsequent self/other attribution tasks without noise revealed a decrease in the ability to detect manipulated (other) feedback compared to training without noise. This suggests a slackening of awareness thresholds in the comparator model that may help to explain clinical observations of decreased action awareness following stroke.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 19%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 38%
Neuroscience 7 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Unspecified 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 12 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 June 2014.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,448
of 7,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,395
of 243,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#229
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 243,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.