↓ Skip to main content

Children’s Spatial Representations: 3- and 4-Year-Olds are Affected by Irrelevant Peripheral References

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 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
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Children’s Spatial Representations: 3- and 4-Year-Olds are Affected by Irrelevant Peripheral References
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01677
Pubmed ID
Authors

Markus Krüger, Georg Jahn

Abstract

Children as young as 3 years can remember an object's location within an arrangement and can retrieve it from a novel viewpoint (Nardini et al., 2006). However, this ability is impaired if the arrangement is rotated to compensate for the novel viewpoint, or, if the arrangement is rotated and children stand still. There are two dominant explanations for this phenomenon: self-motion induces an automatic spatial updating process which is beneficial if children move around the arrangement, but misleading if the children's movement is matched by the arrangement and not activated if children stand still and only the arrangement is moved (see spatial updating; Simons and Wang, 1998). Another explanation concerns reference frames: spatial representations might depend on peripheral spatial relations concerning the surrounding room instead on proximal relations within the arrangement, even if these proximal relations are sufficient or more informative. To evaluate these possibilities, we rotated children (N = 120) aged between 3 and 6 years with an occluded arrangement. When the arrangement was in misalignment to the surrounding room, 3- and 4-year-olds' spatial memory was impaired and 5-year-olds' was lightly impaired suggesting that they relied on peripheral references of the surrounding room for retrieval. In contrast, 6-years-olds' spatial representation seemed robust against misalignment indicating a successful integration of spatial representations.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Librarian 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 46%
Philosophy 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 8%
Chemistry 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
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 10 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,349,796
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,695
of 29,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,142
of 282,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#341
of 487 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 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 29,822 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 282,783 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 487 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.