↓ Skip to main content

The Effect of Visual Distinctiveness on Multiple Object Tracking Performance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
The Effect of Visual Distinctiveness on Multiple Object Tracking Performance
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00307
Pubmed ID
Authors

Piers D. L. Howe, Alex O. Holcombe

Abstract

Observers often need to attentively track moving objects. In everyday life, such objects are often visually distinctive. Previous studies have shown that tracking accuracy is increased when the targets contain a visual feature (e.g., a color) not possessed by the distractors. Conversely, a gain in tracking accuracy was not observed when the targets differed from the distractors by only a conjunction of features (Makovski and Jiang, 2009a). In this study we confirm that some conjunction targets have relatively little effect on tracking accuracy, but show that other conjunction targets can significantly aid tracking. For example, tracking accuracy is relatively high when the targets are small red squares and half the distractors are large red squares while the remaining distractors are small green squares. This seems to occur because the targets have a set of features (small and red) not shared by any one distractor. Attending to these features directs attention more to the targets than the distractors, thereby making the targets easier to track. Existing theories of attentive tracking cannot explain these results.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Other 8 30%
Unknown 3 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 70%
Philosophy 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 2 7%
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 27 August 2012.
All research outputs
#20,165,369
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,771
of 29,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,176
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#406
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.