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 |
Attentional asymmetries – cause or consequence of human right handedness?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01587 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gavin Buckingham, David P. Carey |
| Abstract |
It is well established that the vast majority of the population favors their right hand when performing complex manual tasks. However, the developmental and evolutionary underpinnings of human manual asymmetries remain contentious. One often overlooked suggestion is that right handedness may stem from an asymmetrical bias in attention, with the right hand being allocated more attentional resources during bimanual tasks than the left hand (Peters, 1981). This review examines the evidence for attentional asymmetries during a variety of bimanual tasks, and critically evaluates the explanatory power of this hypothesis for explaining the depth and breadth of individual- and population-level manual asymmetries. We conclude that, while the attentional bias hypothesis is well-supported in adults, it requires further validation from a developmental perspective to explain the full breadth of adult manual laterality. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 21% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 7% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 64% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 14% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 19% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 11 | 26% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 8 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 30 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,133,388
of 23,342,232 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,009
of 31,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,964
of 355,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#144
of 400 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,232 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 355,948 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 400 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.