| Title |
Automated vision occlusion-timing instrument for perception–action research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-017-0864-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John Brenton, Sean Müller, Robbie Rhodes, Brad Finch |
| Abstract |
Vision occlusion spectacles are a highly valuable instrument for visual-perception-action research in a variety of disciplines. In sports, occlusion spectacles have enabled invaluable knowledge to be obtained about the superior capability of experts to use visual information to guide actions within in-situ settings. Triggering the spectacles to occlude a performer's vision at a precise time in an opponent's action or object flight has been problematic, due to experimenter error in using a manual buttonpress approach. This article describes a new laser curtain wireless trigger for vision occlusion spectacles that is portable and fast in terms of its transmission time. The laser curtain can be positioned in a variety of orientations to accept a motion trigger, such as a cricket bowler's arm that distorts the lasers, which then activates a wireless signal for the occlusion spectacles to change from transparent to opaque, which occurs in only 8 ms. Results are reported from calculations done in an electronics laboratory, as well as from tests in a performance laboratory with a cricket bowler and a baseball pitcher, which verified this short time delay before vision occlusion. In addition, our results show that occlusion consistently occurred when it was intended-that is, near ball release and during mid-ball-flight. Only 8% of the collected data trials were unusable. The laser curtain improves upon the limitations of existing vision occlusion spectacle triggers, indicating that it is a valuable instrument for perception-action research in a variety of disciplines. |
X Demographics
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 30% |
| Psychology | 4 | 17% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
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 01 April 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,636
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,306
of 324,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#24
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 324,444 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.