↓ Skip to main content

On the Role of Physical Interaction on Performance of Object Manipulation by Dyads

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
On the Role of Physical Interaction on Performance of Object Manipulation by Dyads
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00533
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keivan Mojtahedi, Qiushi Fu, Marco Santello

Abstract

Human physical interactions can be intrapersonal, e.g., manipulating an object bimanually, or interpersonal, e.g., transporting an object with another person. In both cases, one or two agents are required to coordinate their limbs to attain the task goal. We investigated the physical coordination of two hands during an object-balancing task performed either bimanually by one agent or jointly by two agents. The task consisted of a series of static (holding) and dynamic (moving) phases, initiated by auditory cues. We found that task performance of dyads was not affected by different pairings of dominant and non-dominant hands. However, the spatial configuration of the two agents (side-by-side vs. face-to-face) appears to play an important role, such that dyads performed better side-by-side than face-to-face. Furthermore, we demonstrated that only individuals with worse solo performance can benefit from interpersonal coordination through physical couplings, whereas the better individuals do not. The present work extends ongoing investigations on human-human physical interactions by providing new insights about factors that influence dyadic performance. Our findings could potentially impact several areas, including robotic-assisted therapies, sensorimotor learning and human performance augmentation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 23%
Student > Master 10 18%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 16 28%
Psychology 10 18%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Computer Science 3 5%
Sports and Recreations 3 5%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 17 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,366,847
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,597
of 7,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,131
of 331,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#112
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,189 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 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 331,348 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.