| Title |
Eye movements disrupt spatial but not visual mental imagery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive Processing, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10339-014-0617-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefania de Vito, Antimo Buonocore, Jean-François Bonnefon, Sergio Della Sala |
| Abstract |
It has long been known that eye movements are functionally involved in the generation and maintenance of mental images. Indeed, a number of studies demonstrated that voluntary eye movements interfere with mental imagery tasks (e.g., Laeng and Teodorescu in Cogn Sci 26:207-231, 2002). However, mental imagery is conceived as a multifarious cognitive function with at least two components, a spatial component and a visual component. The present study investigated the question of whether eye movements disrupt mental imagery in general or only its spatial component. We present data on healthy young adults, who performed visual and spatial imagery tasks concurrently with a smooth pursuit. In line with previous literature, results revealed that eye movements had a strong disruptive effect on spatial imagery. Moreover, we crucially demonstrated that eye movements had no disruptive effect when participants visualized the depictive aspects of an object. Therefore, we suggest that eye movements serve to a greater extent the spatial than the visual component of mental imagery. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 57 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 24% |
| Researcher | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 29 | 50% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 10% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 13 | 22% |
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 12 May 2014.
All research outputs
#20,229,658
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Processing
#293
of 337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,415
of 227,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Processing
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 227,583 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.