↓ Skip to main content

The influence of imagery vividness on cognitive and perceptual cues in circular auditorily-induced vection

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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 influence of imagery vividness on cognitive and perceptual cues in circular auditorily-induced vection
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01362
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aleksander Väljamäe, Sara Sell

Abstract

In the absence of other congruent multisensory motion cues, sound contribution to illusions of self-motion (vection) is relatively weak and often attributed to purely cognitive, top-down processes. The present study addressed the influence of cognitive and perceptual factors in the experience of circular, yaw auditorily-induced vection (AIV), focusing on participants imagery vividness scores. We used different rotating sound sources (acoustic landmark vs. movable types) and their filtered versions that provided different binaural cues (interaural time or level differences, ITD vs. ILD) when delivering via loudspeaker array. The significant differences in circular vection intensity showed that (1) AIV was stronger for rotating sound fields containing auditory landmarks as compared to movable sound objects; (2) ITD based acoustic cues were more instrumental than ILD based ones for horizontal AIV; and (3) individual differences in imagery vividness significantly influenced the effects of contextual and perceptual cues. While participants with high scores of kinesthetic and visual imagery were helped by vection "rich" cues, i.e., acoustic landmarks and ITD cues, the participants from the low-vivid imagery group did not benefit from these cues automatically. Only when specifically asked to use their imagination intentionally did these external cues start influencing vection sensation in a similar way to high-vivid imagers. These findings are in line with the recent fMRI work which suggested that high-vivid imagers employ automatic, almost unconscious mechanisms in imagery generation, while low-vivid imagers rely on more schematic and conscious framework. Consequently, our results provide an additional insight into the interaction between perceptual and contextual cues when experiencing purely auditorily or multisensory induced vection.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 17%
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Other 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 24%
Neuroscience 6 14%
Engineering 5 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 12 29%
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 21 December 2014.
All research outputs
#16,275,955
of 23,981,321 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,085
of 32,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,522
of 368,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#292
of 360 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,981,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. 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 368,268 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 360 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.