↓ Skip to main content

Perceptual influence of elementary three-dimensional geometry: (2) fundamental object parts

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
2 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
Perceptual influence of elementary three-dimensional geometry: (2) fundamental object parts
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01427
Pubmed ID
Authors

Minija Tamosiunaite, Rahel M. Sutterlütti, Simon C. Stein, Florentin Wörgötter

Abstract

Objects usually consist of parts and the question arises whether there are perceptual features which allow breaking down an object into its fundamental parts without any additional (e.g., functional) information. As in the first paper of this sequence, we focus on the division of our world along convex to concave surface transitions. Here we are using machine vision to produce convex segments from 3D-scenes. We assume that a fundamental part is one, which we can easily name while at the same time there is no natural subdivision possible into smaller parts. Hence in this experiment we presented the computer vision generated segments to our participants and asked whether they can identify and name them. Additionally we control against segmentation reliability and we find a clear trend that reliable convex segments have a high degree of name-ability. In addition, we observed that using other image-segmentation methods will not yield nameable entities. This indicates that convex-concave surface transition may indeed form the basis for dividing objects into meaningful entities. It appears that other or further subdivisions do not carry such a strong semantical link to our everyday language as there are no names for them.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 1 50%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 50%
Student > Master 1 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 2 100%
Unspecified 1 50%
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 24 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,427,608
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,166
of 29,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,629
of 274,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#441
of 556 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,808 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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 274,665 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 556 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.