↓ Skip to main content

The contributions of vision and haptics to reaching and grasping

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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 contributions of vision and haptics to reaching and grasping
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01403
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kayla D. Stone, Claudia L. R. Gonzalez

Abstract

This review aims to provide a comprehensive outlook on the sensory (visual and haptic) contributions to reaching and grasping. The focus is on studies in developing children, normal, and neuropsychological populations, and in sensory-deprived individuals. Studies have suggested a right-hand/left-hemisphere specialization for visually guided grasping and a left-hand/right-hemisphere specialization for haptically guided object recognition. This poses the interesting possibility that when vision is not available and grasping relies heavily on the haptic system, there is an advantage to use the left hand. We review the evidence for this possibility and dissect the unique contributions of the visual and haptic systems to grasping. We ultimately discuss how the integration of these two sensory modalities shape hand preference.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 88 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 30%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Master 6 7%
Lecturer 4 4%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 28%
Neuroscience 16 18%
Engineering 9 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 9%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 18 20%
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 16 September 2015.
All research outputs
#15,346,908
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,679
of 29,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,533
of 245,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#400
of 579 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,801 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. 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 245,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 579 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.