↓ Skip to main content

Rolling Motion Along an Incline: Visual Sensitivity to the Relation Between Acceleration and Slope

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Rolling Motion Along an Incline: Visual Sensitivity to the Relation Between Acceleration and Slope
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00406
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesca Ceccarelli, Barbara La Scaleia, Marta Russo, Benedetta Cesqui, Silvio Gravano, Maura Mezzetti, Alessandro Moscatelli, Andrea d’Avella, Francesco Lacquaniti, Myrka Zago

Abstract

People easily intercept a ball rolling down an incline, despite its acceleration varies with the slope in a complex manner. Apparently, however, they are poor at detecting anomalies when asked to judge artificial animations of descending motion. Since the perceptual deficiencies have been reported in studies involving a limited visual context, here we tested the hypothesis that judgments of naturalness of rolling motion are consistent with physics when the visual scene incorporates sufficient cues about environmental reference and metric scale, roughly comparable to those present when intercepting a ball. Participants viewed a sphere rolling down an incline located in the median sagittal plane, presented in 3D wide-field virtual reality. In different experiments, either the slope of the plane or the sphere acceleration were changed in arbitrary combinations, resulting in a kinematics that was either consistent or inconsistent with physics. In Experiment 1 (slope adjustment), participants were asked to modify the slope angle until the resulting motion looked natural for a given ball acceleration. In Experiment 2 (acceleration adjustment), instead, they were asked to modify the acceleration until the motion on a given slope looked natural. No feedback about performance was provided. For both experiments, we found that participants were rather accurate at finding the match between slope angle and ball acceleration congruent with physics, but there was a systematic effect of the initial conditions: accuracy was higher when the participants started the exploration from the combination of slope and acceleration corresponding to the congruent conditions than when they started far away from the congruent conditions. In Experiment 3, participants modified the slope angle based on an adaptive staircase, but the target never coincided with the starting condition. Here we found a generally accurate performance, irrespective of the target slope. We suggest that, provided the visual scene includes sufficient cues about environmental reference and metric scale, joint processing of slope and acceleration may facilitate the detection of natural motion. Perception of rolling motion may rely on the kind of approximate, probabilistic simulations of Newtonian mechanics that have previously been called into play to explain complex inferences in rich visual scenes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 9 21%
Engineering 6 14%
Psychology 5 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 17 40%
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 11 July 2018.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#7,428
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,128
of 342,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#170
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 342,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.