| Title |
Isolating shape from semantics in haptic-visual priming
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-013-3489-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ana Pesquita, Allison A. Brennan, James T. Enns, Salvador Soto-Faraco |
| Abstract |
The exploration of a familiar object by hand can benefit its identification by eye. What is unclear is how much this multisensory cross-talk reflects shared shape representations versus generic semantic associations. Here, we compare several simultaneous priming conditions to isolate the potential contributions of shape and semantics in haptic-to-visual priming. Participants explored a familiar object manually (haptic prime) while trying to name a visual object that was gradually revealed in increments of spatial resolution. Shape priming was isolated in a comparison of identity priming (shared semantic category and shape) with category priming (same category, but different shapes). Semantic priming was indexed by the comparisons of category priming with unrelated haptic primes. The results showed that both factors mediated priming, but that their relative weights depended on the reliability of the visual information. Semantic priming dominated in Experiment 1, when participants were free to use high-resolution visual information, but shape priming played a stronger role in Experiment 2, when participants were forced to respond with less reliable visual information. These results support the structural description hypothesis of haptic-visual priming (Reales and Ballesteros in J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 25:644-663, 1999) and are also consistent with the optimal integration theory (Ernst and Banks in Nature 415:429-433, 2002), which proposes a close coupling between the reliability of sensory signals and their weight in decision making. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Italy | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 23% |
| Researcher | 8 | 23% |
| Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 18 | 51% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 11% |
| Engineering | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 7 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 May 2013.
All research outputs
#12,877,225
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#1,487
of 3,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,855
of 196,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#14
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 196,556 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 73% of its contemporaries.