| Title |
Objective measurement of gestalts: Quantifying grouping effect by tilt aftereffect
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-017-0919-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ning Wei, Tiangang Zhou, Lin Chen |
| Abstract |
The importance of holistic perception is described by Gestalt psychology and its principles. Gestalt psychologists have promoted a formal and testable framework for these principles. Quantitative measurements have been introduced from Gestalt psychology in order to complement traditional phenomenal descriptions. Here we demonstrated a new method of measuring grouping effects objectively and quantitatively, by means of tilt aftereffect (TAE) from visual adaptation. Experiment 1 validated the method by measuring grouping based on either proximity or color similarity. Experiments 2 and 3 verified that this paradigm is also effective with dimotif lattices in which different perceptual organizations compete. The novel TAE-based paradigm is an objective and effective method for studying perceptual organization, especially the relationship between different Gestalt principles. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 2 | 12% |
| Researcher | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 47% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 5 | 29% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 59% |
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 08 June 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,896
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,876
of 338,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#23
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 338,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.