↓ Skip to main content

Does Proprioception Influence Human Spatial Cognition? A Study on Individuals With Massive Deafferentation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Does Proprioception Influence Human Spatial Cognition? A Study on Individuals With Massive Deafferentation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01322
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alix G. Renault, Malika Auvray, Gaetan Parseihian, R. Chris Miall, Jonathan Cole, Fabrice R. Sarlegna

Abstract

When navigating in a spatial environment or when hearing its description, we can develop a mental model which may be represented in the central nervous system in different coordinate systems such as an egocentric or allocentric reference frame. The way in which sensory experience influences the preferred reference frame has been studied with a particular interest for the role of vision. The present study investigated the influence of proprioception on human spatial cognition. To do so, we compared the abilities to form spatial models of two rare participants chronically deprived of proprioception (GL and IW) and healthy control participants. Participants listened to verbal descriptions of a spatial environment, and their ability to form and use a mental model was assessed with a distance-comparison task and a free-recall task. Given that the loss of proprioception has been suggested to specifically impair the egocentric reference frame, the deafferented individuals were expected to perform worse than controls when the spatial environment was described in an egocentric reference frame. Results revealed that in both tasks, one deafferented individual (GL) made more errors than controls while the other (IW) made less errors. On average, both GL and IW were slower to respond than controls, and reaction time was more variable for IW. Additionally, we found that GL but not IW was impaired compared to controls in visuo-spatial imagery, which was assessed with the Minnesota Paper Form Board Test. Overall, the main finding of this study is that proprioception can influence the time necessary to use spatial representations while other factors such as visuo-spatial abilities can influence the capacity to form accurate spatial representations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Researcher 4 10%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 14 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 11 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Engineering 4 10%
Psychology 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 13 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 May 2022.
All research outputs
#4,465,215
of 26,459,924 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,785
of 35,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,460
of 344,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#231
of 725 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,459,924 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,433 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 344,536 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 725 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.