The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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.
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 |
Perceptual Training in Beach Volleyball Defence: Different Effects of Gaze-Path Cueing on Gaze and Decision-Making
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01834 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
André Klostermann, Christian Vater, Ralf Kredel, Ernst-Joachim Hossner |
| Abstract |
For perceptual-cognitive skill training, a variety of intervention methods has been proposed, including the so-called "color-cueing method" which aims on superior gaze-path learning by applying visual markers. However, recent findings challenge this method, especially, with regards to its actual effects on gaze behavior. Consequently, after a preparatory study on the identification of appropriate visual cues for life-size displays, a perceptual-training experiment on decision-making in beach volleyball was conducted, contrasting two cueing interventions (functional vs. dysfunctional gaze path) with a conservative control condition (anticipation-related instructions). Gaze analyses revealed learning effects for the dysfunctional group only. Regarding decision-making, all groups showed enhanced performance with largest improvements for the control group followed by the functional and the dysfunctional group. Hence, the results confirm cueing effects on gaze behavior, but they also question its benefit for enhancing decision-making. However, before completely denying the method's value, optimisations should be checked regarding, for instance, cueing-pattern characteristics and gaze-related feedback. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 22% |
| Ireland | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 13 | 72% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 61% |
| Scientists | 6 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 114 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 14% |
| Researcher | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 25 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 45 | 39% |
| Psychology | 16 | 14% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 31 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 14 December 2021.
All research outputs
#2,054,405
of 26,552,141 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,210
of 35,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,179
of 399,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#70
of 453 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,552,141 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,493 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 399,310 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 453 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.