↓ Skip to main content

Visual duration aftereffect is position invariant

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 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
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Visual duration aftereffect is position invariant
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01536
Pubmed ID
Authors

Baolin Li, Xiangyong Yuan, Youguo Chen, Peiduo Liu, Xiting Huang

Abstract

Adaptation to relatively long or short sensory events leads to a negative aftereffect, such that the durations of the subsequent events within a certain range appear to be contracted or expanded. The distortion in perceived duration is presumed to arise from the adaptation of duration detectors. Here, we focus on the positional sensitivity of those visual duration detectors by exploring whether the duration aftereffect may be constrained by the visual location of stimuli. We adopted two different paradigms, one that tests for transfer across visual hemifields, and the other that tests for simultaneous selectivity between visual hemifields. By employing these experimental designs, we show that the duration aftereffect strongly transfers across visual hemifields and is not contingent on them. The lack of position specificity suggests that duration detectors in the visual system may operate at a relatively later stage of sensory processing.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Master 6 15%
Researcher 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 68%
Neuroscience 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 2 5%
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 30 October 2015.
All research outputs
#15,348,067
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,686
of 29,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,288
of 278,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#364
of 529 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 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 29,819 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 278,739 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 529 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.