| Title |
Time dilation caused by static images with implied motion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-012-3259-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kentaro Yamamoto, Kayo Miura |
| Abstract |
The present study examined whether implicit motion information from static images influences perceived duration of image presentation. In Experiments 1 and 2, we presented observers with images of a human and an animal character in running and standing postures. The results revealed that the perceived presentation duration of running images was longer than that of standing images. In Experiments 3 and 4, we used abstract block-like images that imitated the human figures used in Experiment 1, presented with different instructions to change the observers' interpretations of the stimuli. We found that the perceived duration of the block image presented as a man running was longer than that of the image presented as a man standing still. However, this effect diminished when the participants were told the images were green onions (objects with no implied motion), suggesting that the effect of implied motion cannot be attributed to low-level visual differences. These results suggest that implied motion increases the perceived duration of image presentation. The potential involvement of higher-order motion processing and the mirror neuron system is discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 4% |
| Germany | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 71 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 16% |
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 40 | 52% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 22% |
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 23 October 2012.
All research outputs
#18,319,742
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,472
of 3,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,250
of 168,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#28
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 168,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.