↓ Skip to main content

Extended stereopsis evaluation of professional and amateur soccer players and subjects without soccer background

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Extended stereopsis evaluation of professional and amateur soccer players and subjects without soccer background
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01186
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Paulus, Jie Tong, Joachim Hornegger, Michael Schmidt, Björn Eskofier, Georg Michelson

Abstract

Stereopsis is one of several visual depth cues. It has been evaluated for athletes of different types of sports in the past. However, most studies do not cover the full range of stereopsis performance. Therefore, we propose computer-supported stereopsis tests that provide an extended assessment and analysis of stereopsis performance including stereo acuity and response times. By providing stationary and moving stimuli they cover static and dynamic stereopsis, respectively. The proposed stereopsis tests were used to compare professional and amateur soccer players with subjects without soccer background. The soccer players could not perform significantly (p ≤ 0.05) superior than the subjects without soccer background. However, the soccer players showed significantly (p ≤ 0.01) superior choice reaction times for monocular stimuli. The results are in congruence with previous findings in literature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 53 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 16 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 20%
Sports and Recreations 8 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Psychology 5 9%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 16 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 25 April 2015.
All research outputs
#5,399,850
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,676
of 29,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,395
of 259,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#134
of 382 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,681 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 74% 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 259,226 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 382 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.