| Title |
Judgments of differences and ratios of subjective heaviness
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13414-017-1334-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sergio Cesare Masin, Andrea Brancaccio |
| Abstract |
Experimental instructions to judge differences or ratios of subjective heaviness numerically are generally assumed to produce judgments linearly proportional to the respective heaviness differences or heaviness ratios. In this study, participants were instructed to numerically judge the difference or ratio of heaviness between two weights being lifted separately, either unimanually or bimanually. Weight values were combined factorially. Patterns of factorial curves revealed that unimanual lifting triggered linear judgments of heaviness differences, whereas bimanual lifting triggered nonlinear judgments of heaviness ratios. Lifting conditions produced these judgments independently of the instruction specifications to judge differences or ratios. These results suggest the interpretation that unimanual lifting triggers linear judgments of heaviness differences by default, whereas bimanual lifting triggers nonlinear judgments of heaviness ratios learned through experience. Implications for sensory measurement are noted. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 2 | 29% |
| Other | 1 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 14% |
| Other | 1 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 5 | 71% |
| Engineering | 2 | 29% |
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 June 2017.
All research outputs
#18,827,930
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#1,508
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,617
of 316,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#19
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 316,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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.