↓ Skip to main content

Aiming accuracy in preferred and non-preferred limbs: implications for programing models of motor control

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Aiming accuracy in preferred and non-preferred limbs: implications for programing models of motor control
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01236
Pubmed ID
Authors

David E Sherwood

Abstract

Most models of motor programing contend that one can perform learned actions with different muscle groups or limbs demonstrating the concept of motor equivalence. The goal of this review is to determine the generality of this concept within the context of aiming movements performed by both preferred and non-preferred limbs. Theoretical approaches to motor programing are described, followed by a comparison of a variety of kinematic measures taken from preferred and non-preferred limbs from simple and more complex aiming tasks. In general, the support for motor equivalency is strong for one- and two-dimensional aiming tasks and for simultaneous bimanual movements, but mixed for unconstrained throwing tasks and tasks that require feedback-based corrections.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 25%
Researcher 2 17%
Professor 1 8%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 3 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%
Psychology 2 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Unknown 1 8%
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 23 November 2014.
All research outputs
#13,416,718
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,314
of 29,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,499
of 262,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#254
of 379 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,685 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 53% 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 262,194 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 379 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.