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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Differences between Spatial and Visual Mental Representations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00240 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jan Frederik Sima, Holger Schultheis, Thomas Barkowsky |
| Abstract |
This article investigates the relationship between visual mental representations and spatial mental representations in human visuo-spatial processing. By comparing two common theories of visuo-spatial processing - mental model theory and the theory of mental imagery - we identified two open questions: (1) which representations are modality-specific, and (2) what is the role of the two representations in reasoning. Two experiments examining eye movements and preferences for under-specified problems were conducted to investigate these questions. We found that significant spontaneous eye movements along the processed spatial relations occurred only when a visual mental representation is employed, but not with a spatial mental representation. Furthermore, the preferences for the answers of the under-specified problems differed between the two mental representations. The results challenge assumptions made by mental model theory and the theory of mental imagery. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
| Japan | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 97 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 14% |
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 22% |
| Unknown | 18 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 27 | 26% |
| Design | 11 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 23% |
| Unknown | 22 | 22% |
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 16 June 2013.
All research outputs
#13,687,874
of 22,709,015 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,806
of 29,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,976
of 280,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#574
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,709,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,492 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 280,729 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 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.