| Title |
Visual processing is biased in peripersonal foot space
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13414-016-1225-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Benjamin A. Stettler, Laura E. Thomas |
| Abstract |
Objects in peripersonal space are of great importance for interaction with the sensory world. A variety of research exploring sensory processing in peripersonal space has produced extensive evidence for altered vision near the hands. However, visual representations of the peripersonal space surrounding the feet remain unexplored. In a set of four experiments, we investigated whether observers experience biases in visual processing for objects near the feet that mirror the alterations associated with near-hand space. Participants performed attentional-cueing tasks in which they detected targets appearing (1) near or far from a single visible foot, (2) near one of two visible feet, (3) near or far from a nonfoot visual anchor, or (4) near or far from an occluded foot. We found a temporal cost associated with detecting targets appearing far from a visible foot, but no biases were associated with targets appearing near versus far from either a nonfoot visual anchor or an occluded foot. These results provide the first evidence suggesting that objects within stepping or kicking distance are processed differently from objects outside of peripersonal foot space. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 32% |
| Researcher | 8 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Librarian | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 10 | 32% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 10% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
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 10 November 2016.
All research outputs
#19,512,854
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#1,533
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,008
of 323,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#16
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 323,694 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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.