↓ Skip to main content

Hitting ability and perception of object’s size: evidence for a negative relation

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Hitting ability and perception of object’s size: evidence for a negative relation
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, May 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13414-014-0685-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wladimir Kirsch, Elisabeth Königstein, Wilfried Kunde

Abstract

We examined the relation between motor performance and perception of object's size in near space. The general task was to repeatedly hit a target by means of pointing movements and to estimate target's size. In contrast to the results of previous studies, Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 revealed a negative relation between action ability and perceived target size: Participants who hit the target relatively often and whose motor variability was relatively low judged targets to be smaller than did participants whose motor performance was relatively poor. In Experiment 3, the size judgments were made in the presence of the target before, as well as after, pointing movements. The target was judged as smaller when it was easy, rather than difficult, to hit before as well as after the movement. Altogether, these results indicate that under certain conditions, an increased action ability reduces the apparent size of the actions' target objects.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 24 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Lecturer 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 10 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 35%
Sports and Recreations 4 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 September 2016.
All research outputs
#13,431,444
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#467
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,291
of 230,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#6
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
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 230,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.