↓ Skip to main content

Visual integration in autism

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Visual integration in autism
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00387
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danielle Smith, Danielle Ropar, Harriet A. Allen

Abstract

Atypical integration is a topic of debate in the autism literature. Some theories suggest that altered perception in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is due to a failure to integrate information from meaningful context into the final percept, whereas others suggest that integration of low-level features is impaired. Empirical research which forms the basis for these theories has failed to account for higher-level influences not inherent in the stimuli (i.e., instructions and goals) and assess integration at both lower and higher perceptual levels within the same task. Here, we describe how perceived expectations and goals of a task can modulate the processing of low-level visual input via the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). We then go on to illustrate how future research might assess the relative contribution of both low and high-level processes using the same paradigm. We conclude by recommending that when results appear conflicting, consideration of the relative strength of low-level input vs. feedback or high-level processes may prove helpful. Importantly, research in this area needs to more broadly consider the various influences on perception, and find better ways to assess the contributions of early and later visual processes.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Student > Master 8 12%
Lecturer 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 32%
Neuroscience 7 11%
Linguistics 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 17 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 February 2019.
All research outputs
#12,929,609
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,674
of 7,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,204
of 263,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#78
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 263,437 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.