↓ Skip to main content

Observation of own exploration movements impairs haptic spatial perception

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Observation of own exploration movements impairs haptic spatial perception
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, September 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00221-013-3706-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie Mueller, Stefanie Habermann, Janett Dudda, Martin Grunwald

Abstract

The present study was designed to assess whether the visibility of ones' own exploratory movements impairs or enhances perceptual speed and precision of haptic stimuli with varying complexity. Previous studies have shown that noninformative vision of steady surroundings improves haptic spatial perception. However, due to the serial nature of haptic processing and limited capacity of working memory resources, we hypothesized that noninformative vision of limb movements may impair haptic perception. The study sample consisted of ninety-eight healthy adults who were randomized into two groups, matched for sex and age. Participants were required to explore two-dimensional haptic stimuli with varying complexity and to recognize them visually. The difference between the two experimental groups was a screen that would prevent the participants from viewing their hands during exploration in the nonobservation condition (NonOb). The other half of participants were able to see their hands in the manual movement observation condition (MovOb) thanks to the special design of the stimuli. As hypothesized, the persons in the MovOb condition made significantly more errors. The difference in error frequency between participants of the MovOb and NonOb condition was greater for complex stimuli than for simple ones. These results suggest that incoming visual information about own manual exploration movements increases competitive pressure for limited working memory resources, and therefore, more recognition errors are made. Covering the hands during exploration may constitute a helpful simplification of the task's demands by supporting the maintenance of information in working memory. Additionally, the relation of haptic complexity and stimulus characteristics was analyzed.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Norway 1 3%
Unknown 31 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Lecturer 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 33%
Engineering 5 15%
Computer Science 3 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Sports and Recreations 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 3 9%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 October 2013.
All research outputs
#18,351,676
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,473
of 3,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,206
of 203,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#35
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 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 3,219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. 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 203,210 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 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.