↓ Skip to main content

You Should Be the Specialist! Weak Mental Rotation Performance in Aviation Security Screeners – Reduced Performance Level in Aviation Security with No Gender Effect

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
You Should Be the Specialist! Weak Mental Rotation Performance in Aviation Security Screeners – Reduced Performance Level in Aviation Security with No Gender Effect
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00333
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenny K. Krüger, Boris Suchan

Abstract

Aviation security screeners analyze a large number of X-ray images per day and seem to be experts in mentally rotating diverse kinds of visual objects. A robust gender-effect that men outperform women in the Vandenberg & Kuse mental rotation task has been well documented over the last years. In addition it has been shown that training can positively influence the overall task-performance. Considering this, the aim of the present study was to investigate whether security screeners show better performance in the Mental Rotation Test (MRT) independently of gender. Forty-seven security screeners of both sexes from two German airports were examined with a computer based MRT. Their performance was compared to a large sample of control subjects. The well-known gender-effect favoring men on mental rotation was significant within the control group. However, the security screeners did not show any sex differences suggesting an effect of training and professional performance. Surprisingly this specialized group showed a lower level of overall MRT performance than the control participants. Possible aviation related influences such as secondary effects of work-shift or expertise which can cumulatively cause this result are discussed.

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 3 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 12 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Computer Science 3 6%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 27%
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 20 October 2016.
All research outputs
#15,362,070
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,724
of 29,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,098
of 300,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#342
of 480 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 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 29,874 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 300,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 480 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.