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.
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 |
Task-Irrelevant Expectation Violations in Sequential Manual Actions: Evidence for a “Check-after-Surprise” Mode of Visual Attention and Eye-Hand Decoupling
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01845 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca M. Foerster |
| Abstract |
When performing sequential manual actions (e.g., cooking), visual information is prioritized according to the task determining where and when to attend, look, and act. In well-practiced sequential actions, long-term memory (LTM)-based expectations specify which action targets might be found where and when. We have previously demonstrated (Foerster and Schneider, 2015b) that violations of such expectations that are task-relevant (e.g., target location change) cause a regression from a memory-based mode of attentional selection to visual search. How might task-irrelevant expectation violations in such well-practiced sequential manual actions modify attentional selection? This question was investigated by a computerized version of the number-connection test. Participants clicked on nine spatially distributed numbered target circles in ascending order while eye movements were recorded as proxy for covert attention. Target's visual features and locations stayed constant for 65 prechange-trials, allowing practicing the manual action sequence. Consecutively, a task-irrelevant expectation violation occurred and stayed for 20 change-trials. Specifically, action target number 4 appeared in a different font. In 15 reversion-trials, number 4 returned to the original font. During the first task-irrelevant change trial, manual clicking was slower and eye scanpaths were larger and contained more fixations. The additional fixations were mainly checking fixations on the changed target while acting on later targets. Whereas the eyes repeatedly revisited the task-irrelevant change, cursor-paths remained completely unaffected. Effects lasted for 2-3 change trials and did not reappear during reversion. In conclusion, an unexpected task-irrelevant change on a task-defining feature of a well-practiced manual sequence leads to eye-hand decoupling and a "check-after-surprise" mode of attentional selection. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 22% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 14 | 52% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 November 2016.
All research outputs
#14,869,124
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#16,173
of 30,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,854
of 415,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#275
of 420 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,036 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 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 415,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 420 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.