↓ Skip to main content

The visual and haptic contributions to hand perception

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
The visual and haptic contributions to hand perception
Published in
Psychological Research, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00426-017-0870-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lara A. Coelho, Claudia LR Gonzalez

Abstract

Previous research has found that the perception of our hands is distorted. The characteristics of this distortion are an overestimation of hand width and an underestimation of finger length. The present study examined the role that different sensory modalities (vision and/or haptics) play in the perception of our hands. Participants pointed to their concealed hand in one of three groups: Vision+Haptics, Vision-only, or Haptics-only. Participants in the Vision+Haptics group had vision (non-informative) of the experimental setup and of the pointing hand, but no vision of the hand being estimated. They also experienced haptic feedback as the palm of the hand was in contact with the undersurface of a tabletop, where the estimations were made. Participants in the Vision-only group, instead of placing the hand to be estimated underneath the tabletop, they placed it behind their backs. Participants in this group were asked to imagine as if the hand was under the table when making their estimations. In the Haptics-only group, participants completed the task with the hand underneath the tabletop (as in the Vision+Haptics group) but did so while wearing a blindfold (no vision). All participants estimated the position of ten landmarks on the hand: the fingertip and the metacarpophalangeal joint of each digit. Hand maps were constructed using a 3D motion capture system. Participants in the Haptics-only group produced the most accurate hand maps. We discuss the possibility that vision interferes with somatosensory processing.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 26%
Student > Master 9 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 23%
Neuroscience 10 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Computer Science 2 4%
Design 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 12 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,935,459
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#522
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,447
of 309,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#10
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 309,527 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 58% of its contemporaries.