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 |
The Holistic Processing Account of Visual Expertise in Medical Image Perception: A Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01620 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Heather Sheridan, Eyal M. Reingold |
| Abstract |
In the field of medical image perception, the holistic processing perspective contends that experts can rapidly extract global information about the image, which can be used to guide their subsequent search of the image (Swensson, 1980; Nodine and Kundel, 1987; Kundel et al., 2007). In this review, we discuss the empirical evidence supporting three different predictions that can be derived from the holistic processing perspective: Expertise in medical image perception is domain-specific, experts use parafoveal and/or peripheral vision to process large regions of the image in parallel, and experts benefit from a rapid initial glimpse of an image. In addition, we discuss a pivotal recent study (Litchfield and Donovan, 2016) that seems to contradict the assumption that experts benefit from a rapid initial glimpse of the image. To reconcile this finding with the existing literature, we suggest that global processing may serve multiple functions that extend beyond the initial glimpse of the image. Finally, we discuss future research directions, and we highlight the connections between the holistic processing account and similar theoretical perspectives and findings from other domains of visual expertise. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 83 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Professor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 17% |
| Unknown | 16 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 26 | 31% |
| Engineering | 9 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 23 | 28% |
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 20 February 2021.
All research outputs
#14,079,280
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,296
of 30,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,170
of 320,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#368
of 588 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 320,984 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 588 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.